world bank document · 4 2015 cpia africa report summary u the average cpia score for ida-eligible...

JUNE 2016

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

i i

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by a team led by Punam Chuhan-Pole and comprising Mapi M. Buitano, Vijdan Korman, and Beatrice A. Berman. Paul Brenton, Adja Mansora Dahourou, David Evans, Daniel John Kirkwood, Stephen Ling, Waleed Haider Malik, Cedric Mousset, Anna Popova, Ayago Esmubancha Wambile, Huihui Wang, and Penny Williams contributed to the report. Cesar Calderon, Christian Yves Gonzalez, Khadija Shaikh, Kebede Feda, Vivek Suri, and country teams provided valuable comments. The report was prepared under the general guidance of Albert G. Zeufack.

1

Contents

2015 CPIA Results for Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CPIA Africa: Compare your country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Country Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Cabo Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Central African Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Comoros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Congo, Democratic Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Congo, Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Côte d’Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Eritrea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Gambia, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Lesotho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Mauritania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71São Tomé and Príncipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74South Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Appendix A: CPIA Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Appendix B: Country Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix C: Guide to CPIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

2

List of Figures

Figure 1 Policy Frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Figure 2 Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Figure 3 CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Figure 4 Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Figure 5 CPIA Scores, by Cluster and Country Group, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Figure A.1 Trend in Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure A.2 Fiscal Balance in Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2007–08 and 2014–15 . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure A.3 Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure A.4 Evolution of Risk of Debt Stress over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure B.1 CPIA Score for Trade, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure B.2 Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure B.3 Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure B.4 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business Indicators, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure B.5 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business, by Country, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure C.1 Average CPIA Score for Equity of Public Resource Use, by Country Group, 2015 . . . . 24

Figure BC.2.1 Number of Poverty Data Points over 10-Year Periods in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure BC.2.2 Comparable Consumption Surveys per Country, 1990–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure C.2 Statistical Capacity Indicator (SCI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure C.3 Health Outcomes by Income Category, Region, and Fragility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure C.4 Public Expenditure Share of Total Health Expenditure, by CPIA Health Component Score in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure C.5 Distribution of the CPIA score for Education, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure C.6 Environment CPIA Score for 2015 and Adjusted Net Savings (Latest Data) . . . . . . . . 33

Figure D.1 Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure D.2 Change in Cluster D Score in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure D.3 Cluster D Changes between 2009 and 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of Maps

Map C.1 Consumption Surveys, by Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

List of Tables

Table A.1 Changes in Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table D.1 Changes in Scores, by Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table D.2 Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems (Doing Business) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3

2015 CP iA RESULTS FOR AFRiCA

4

2015 CPIA AFRICA REPORT

Summary

u The average CPIA score for IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.2 in 2015, representing a flat regional trend in the quality of policies and institutions. Rwanda continued to lead all countries with a score of 4.0, followed by Cabo Verde, Kenya, and Senegal, all with a score of 3.8.

u Beneath a flat regional trend, there was considerable movement in policy and institutional performance across countries, with half of the region’s countries experiencing a change in their aggregate CPIA score in 2015. The number of countries that saw a decline in this score outpaced the number of gainers by nearly two to one, a worsening trend compared with 2014.

u Weaker macroeconomic management, underpinned by difficult global economic conditions, explains much of the deterioration in country-level performance. Indeed, over one-third of the region’s countries (13 of the 38 IDA-eligible countries) experienced a slippage in at least one of the economic management policy areas—monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt.

u The latest assessments indicate that the pace of improvement in governance slowed in 2015: seven countries (compared with nine in 2014) saw measurable gains in governance, and six countries (compared with four in 2014) experienced a decline. Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector is the weakest performing component of governance.

u The average CPIA score for the region’s non-fragile countries was 3.5 in 2015, comparable to that of non-fragile countries elsewhere. At the same time, Sub-Saharan Africa’s fragile countries continued to lag fragile countries outside the region, especially on governance.

Recent Trends and AnalysisCPIA Africa is an annual report that describes the progress Sub-Saharan African countries are making on strengthening the quality of their policies and institutions. It presents Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) scores for 381 African countries that are eligible for support from the International Development Association (IDA), the concessional financing arm of the World Bank Group. CPIA scores reflect the quality of a country’s policy and institutional framework across 16 dimensions, grouped into four clusters: economic management (Cluster A), structural policies (Cluster B), policies for social inclusion and equity (Cluster C), and public sector management and institutions (Cluster D, also referred to as the governance cluster). The development literature identifies the components of the CPIA as being broadly relevant for sustaining growth and reducing poverty (IEG 2010).2 CPIA scores, which are on a scale of 1 to 6, with 6 being the highest, are computed by World Bank staff and based on quantitative and qualitative information. The assessment also relies on the judgments of World Bank staff. CPIA scores are used in determining IDA’s allocation of resources to the poorest countries.

1 38 IDA-eligible countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that had a CPIA score in 2015. See Appendix B.2 The World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment: An Evaluation.

5

The global economic environment facing Sub-Saharan Africa weakened significantly in 2015, as commodity prices fell sharply and growth weakened around the world, especially in emerging market economies. In some cases, the impact of external headwinds in the region was compounded by adverse domestic developments such as drought, electricity shortages, political uncertainty, and security threats. The large drop in commodity prices—for example, oil prices declined by 67 percent, from US$108/barrel in June 2014 to US$38/barrel by December 2015—represented a significant terms-of-trade shock for Sub-Saharan Africa, as much of the region’s total exports consist of commodities. Fuels, ore, and metals account for more than 60 percent of the region’s exports, compared with just 16 percent for manufactured goods and 10 percent for agricultural products. In addition, in commodity exporters, especially oil, fiscal revenues are heavily dependent on commodity-based receipts: For example, oil revenues accounted for nearly 70 percent of fiscal revenues in the Republic of Congo in 2014 and around 60 percent in Nigeria.

Lower commodity prices put downward pressure on the current account and fiscal balances, exacerbating near-term economic vulnerabilities, which are reflected in declining reserve positions, depreciating currencies, higher inflation, and rising debt burdens. Rising economic vulnerabilities signal shrinking space for cyclical policies. Weaker policy frameworks in several countries are, thus, constraining the scope for these countries to formulate a policy response to a more difficult economic environment (figure 1).

Global trends confronting Sub-Saharan Africa, especially the end of the commodity super-cycle, have highlighted vulnerabilities in the structure of the region’s economies. Yet, the current difficult situation also presents opportunities to accelerate crucial reforms aimed at boosting competitiveness and diversification, which will be critical for raising growth prospects, reducing extreme poverty, and promoting shared prosperity. In most countries this will require greater efficiency of infrastructure investment, strengthened domestic resource mobilization, improved efficiency and quality of business regulations, reduced trade costs, a more inclusive financial sector, improved quality and quantity of human capital investments, investment in high-return areas of human capital, and improved service delivery. This calls for strengthening public institutions so as to make them more accountable for delivering services to citizens. As African countries move to rebuild momentum on economic development, the CPIA provides a useful framework for measuring the progress that countries are making on adjusting to a new, lower level of commodity prices; addressing economic vulnerabilities; and developing new sources of sustainable, inclusive growth.

FIGURE 1

High or rising fiscal deficits mean several countries are not able to use fiscal policies to counter the effect of the slowdown in economic activity

Source: Africa’s Pulse. April 2016, Volume 13. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Policy Frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa

-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

10 15 20 25 30 -5 5

COM ZAR

Over

all fi

scal

fala

nce ,

2015

(% o

f GDP

)

CMR

TCD

COG

GNB MRT

NER TGO

ZWE

STP

BEN BFA

BDI

CPV

GMB

LSO MLI SEN

SDN

CAF CIV

ERI

ETH

GIN KEN

LBR

MDG MOZ

RWA SLE UGA

Inflation, end-2015 (%)

TZA GHA

NGA

ZMB

Weaker Policy Framework

MWI

6

2015 CPIA ResultsThe average CPIA score for Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015 was 3.2, representing a flat regional trend in this measure. There was considerable diversity in aggregate scores across the region’s 38 IDA borrowers, with Rwanda continuing to lead all countries with a score of 4.0, followed by Cabo Verde, Kenya, and Senegal, all with a score of 3.8, and over one-fifth of the countries registering scores between 3.5 and 3.7 (figure 2). Half of the region’s countries showed relatively weak performance on the quality of policies and institutions (CPIA score of 3.2 or less), and the low end of the score range edged down to 1.9, as Eritrea and South Sudan saw slippages in several policy areas.

Despite a broadly steady CPIA score at the regional level, half of Sub-Saharan African countries experienced a movement in the aggregate CPIA score in 2015. But the number of countries that saw a decline in score was nearly double that of the number of improvers (figure 3). Much of this decline was caused by a deterioration in the quality of economic management, underpinned by weaker global

economic conditions. Indeed, 13 countries (34 percent) saw a reduction in at least one of the components of the economic management cluster.

Across the region, only seven countries experienced an improvement in their overall CPIA score in 2015, well below the number of countries with gains in 2014. Among the gainers, Ghana led with a 0.2-point increase. After declining from 3.9 in 2011 to 3.4 in 2014, Ghana’s CPIA score rebounded to 3.6 in 2015, thanks to tangible improvements in several policy areas, including monetary and fiscal management, property rights and ruled-based governance, quality of budgetary management, and efficiency of tax policy. Better availability of data and information, coupled

FIGURE 2

The average CPIA score for Sub-Saharan Africa in 2015 was 3.2. Rwanda leads again with a score of 4.0, followed by Cabo Verde, Kenya, and Senegal all with a score of 3.8. Over one-fifth of countries registered scores between 3.5 and 3.7

Source: CPiA database.

Overall CPIA Scores of Sub-Saharan African Countries (IDA), 2015

South Sudan Eritrea Sudan

Central African Republic Guinea-Bissau

Chad Comoros

Zimbabwe Gambia, The

Togo

Congo, Democratic Republic Congo, Republic

São Tomé and Principe

Burundi

Guinea Liberia

Cameroon

Madagascar

SSA-IDA Average Malawi

Sierra Leone

Côte d'Ivoire

Zambia

Lesotho Mauritania

Mali Nigeria

Niger Mozambique

Ethiopia Benin

Ghana Burkina Faso

Tanzania Uganda

Kenya Senegal

Cabo Verde Rwanda

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

1.9 1.9

2.4 2.5 2.5

2.8 2.8

2.9 2.9

3.0 3.0 3.0

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

3.2 3.2

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

3.6 3.6

3.7 3.7

3.8 3.8 3.8

4.0

7

with implementation of economic policies under the International Monetary Fund’s Staff Monitored Program, lifted Zimbabwe’s CPIA score by 0.2 point. The country’s overall CPIA score has risen from 2.2 in 2012 to 2.9 in 2015, a 0.7-point increase over three years. Several countries saw a 0.1-point increase in their overall CPIA scores. Among these was Comoros, which posted improvements in debt policy and management, business environment, gender equality, property rights, and public financial management, all of which contributed to reverse the 2014 decline in the country’s CPIA score. Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea, and Niger also saw stronger policy performance, which helped boost their CPIA score.

In 2015 there was an uptick in the number of countries that experienced a weakening in their overall quality of policies. For 12 countries, there was a deterioration in their CPIA score, with Burundi and The Gambia (both fragile countries) seeing the sharpest decline.3 The improving trend in Burundi’s policy environment reversed sharply, with the country’s CPIA falling from 3.3 in 2014 to 3.1 in 2015. The slippage in the country’s quality of policies and institutions was broad-based, with declines in monetary and fiscal policies, debt management, property rights, budgetary and financial management, and accountability. The Gambia continued to see further weakening of its policy framework: the CPIA score fell from 3.1 in 2014 to 2.9 in 2015, and is well below the score of 3.5 in 2011. Several policy areas deteriorated further this year, including monetary and fiscal management, financial sector, equity of public resource use, environment, and quality of public financial management.

Elsewhere, the declines were more modest, with over one-fourth of the region’s IDA countries posting a reduction of 0.1 point in their overall CPIA scores: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Eritrea, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Zambia. The decline in Zambia’s score to 3.3 resulted from weaker performance in all three components of the economic management cluster. The drop in Mozambique’s score to 3.5 was caused by reductions in its monetary and debt policies as well as a decline in accountability. South Sudan continued to deteriorate further, and its CPIA score dipped to 1.9 in 2015 from 2.0 in 2014. South Sudan experienced reductions in many areas this year, including the economic management and governance clusters. The country’s bleak performance underscores how conflict and fragility can stall or reverse development.

3 Fragile countries refer to “Fragile Situations” that are defined as having: either a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or b) the presence of a UN and/or regional peace-keeping or peace-building mission during the past three years. Only IDA-eligible countries and non-member or inactive territories/countries without CPIA data are included in the group of Fragile Situations. Details are in Appendix B.

FIGURE 3

The number of Sub-Saharan African countries which saw a decline in their CPIA score was nearly double that of the number of improvers

Source: CPiA database. Note: Fragile countries are in orange color

CPIA Score and Change in Score for Selected Countries, 2015

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

Chan

ge in

ove

rall

CPIA

Scor

e, 2

014-

2015

Overall CPIA score, 2015

Below SSA average Above SSA average

SlippingFalling behind GMB BDI

SSD

ERI

NER GIN COM

TCD CAR

ZWE GHA

-0.3

ZMB TZA NGA

MOZ MRT CPV CMR

BFA

8

A few countries notched improvements in key policy areas, but these did not translate into an increase in these countries’ aggregate score. For example, Côte d’Ivoire, which saw four consecutive years of strengthening CPIA scores (2011-14) because of wide-ranging policy reforms, did not post an increase in its CPIA score in 2015, despite a stronger performance in equity of public resource use (a component of Cluster C).

The flat regional trend in the overall CPIA score was underpinned by broadly unchanged cluster-level scores (figure 4). Yet, there was substantial diversity in country-level performance within the clusters and in policy components. This was especially the case for the economic management cluster, in which there was continued weakness in the quality of the macroeconomic policy framework in several Sub-Saharan African countries. Unsurprisingly, a more difficult external environment and reduced policy buffers heightened economic vulnerabilities in several countries. In some cases, domestic difficulties adversely impacted policy performance. Overall, 13 countries experienced a decrease in their economic management score: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, The Gambia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Togo, and Zambia. In a positive development, a few countries (seven) bucked the weakening trend and posted increases, including Ghana. At the regional level, the quality of fiscal policy continued to deteriorate, and monetary and exchange rate policy performance weakened as well.

The latest assessments indicate that the encouraging trend in governance (the public sector management and institutions cluster) seen in 2014 has stalled. Nearly one-fourth of the countries (nine) saw a strengthening in this category in 2014, but only seven had increases in 2015. At the same time, six countries saw a reduction in the governance score in 2015, compared with four countries in 2014. Given that the governance cluster score lags all others, this slower pace of improvement is concerning. Among the gainers in 2015, Ghana and Comoros experienced score increases of 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Gains in the quality of public financial management, coupled with property rights and rule-based strengthening,

FIGURE 4

Although regional cluster-level scores remained broadly unchanged, there was divergence in country-level performance within clusters, especially in economic management


Trends in CPIA Clusters for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2008–15

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CPIA

sco

re

Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural policies

Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion and equity Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions

3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3

3.2 3.2

3.0

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0

2.9 2.9 3.0

9

led to the upgrade of the governance cluster in both countries. A handful of countries—Chad, Guinea, Madagascar, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe—saw an improvement of 0.1 point. Among countries that experienced a setback, the decline in performance was particularly evident in Burundi and South Sudan, where the escalation of violence, corrupt practices, and political and ethnic conflict has made already weak public institutions opaque and unaccountable, and citizens vulnerable and at risk.

There were fewer country-level movements in the other clusters. For example, in the structural policies cluster, a few countries experienced a deterioration in financial sector performance. In the social inclusion and equity cluster, there were signs of improvement in the quality of environmental policies (in some cases because of better information), but there were a few instances of slippage on gender equality.

The latest CPIA results show that the average score for Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA countries is now similar to that of all IDA countries—that is, a score of 3.2. This development reflects a small decline in the average score of all IDA countries, largely due to weaker performance of the economic management cluster. As in recent years, the region’s non-fragile countries have comparable scores to non-fragile countries elsewhere (figure 5). At the same time, Sub-Saharan Africa’s fragile countries continue to lag fragile countries outside the region, especially on governance. Overall, Sub-Saharan Africa’s regional CPIA score remains slightly below that of other IDA countries.

FIGURE 5

Non-fragile countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have comparable scores to non-fragile countries elsewhere. But the region’s fragile countries continue to lag fragile countries outside the region, especially on governance


CPIA Scores, by Cluster and Country Group, 2015CPIA Scores by Clusters and Country Groups, 2015

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA

Cluster A: Economic management Cluster B: Structural polices Cluster C: Policies for social inclusion Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions Overall CPIA

2.9 3.0

3.6

2.9 3.0

3.5

2.9 2.8

3.5

2.6 2.8

3.3

2.8 2.9

3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6

3.3 3.5

1 0

Analysis of CPIA Components

CLUSTER A: ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

The quality of monetary and exchange rate, fiscal, and debt policies is covered under this cluster.

A more difficult economic landscape put pressure on fiscal and external balances, complicating economic management in many Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015. More than one-third of the region’s countries (13) saw a slippage in their economic management score, up from 11 countries in 2014: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, South Sudan, The Gambia, Togo, and Zambia (table A.1). Not surprisingly, several of the countries with a deterioration in this policy cluster are commodity exporters. Often, countries experienced a decline in more than one policy area, reflecting the interconnected nature of economic management. A few countries (Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Ghana, Mali, and Zimbabwe) saw an improvement in this score, thanks to efforts aimed at restoring macroeconomic stabilization. Overall, the regional score for the economic management cluster remained broadly unchanged at 3.3, despite weaker performance on monetary and exchange rate and fiscal policies (figure A.1).

Table A.1 Changes in Economic Management Cluster Scores, 2015

Change in Scores Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies Fiscal Policy Debt Policy and

Management

Increases Ghana, ZimbabweCentral African Republic, Ghana, Zimbabwe

Chad, Comoros, Mali

DecreasesBurkina Faso, Burundi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, The Gambia, Zambia

Burundi, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Sudan, The Gambia, Zambia

Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Republic, Lesotho, Mozambique, Togo, Zambia


Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy

This component covers the quality of monetary and exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework. The regional score for this policy fell 0.1 point to 3.4 in 2015, and is below the score of 3.6 achieved during 2009 and 2012. Seven countries saw a reduction in their score, and only two countries posted an increase.

FIGURE A.1

Fiscal policy continued to weaken, and the score of monetary and exchange rate policy also edged down


Trend in Economic Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2006–15

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CPIA

sco

re, 2

015

Monetary and exchange rate policy Fiscal policy Debt policy

1 1

External positions weakened in 2015. In many cases, the deterioration in the current account deficit led to falling reserves and substantial currency depreciations. Reserve levels fell across the region, most markedly among oil exporters and in countries defending fixed exchange rates (Burundi, Nigeria, and Rwanda). Monetary authorities in countries with a flexible exchange rate regime responded to the pressures on exchange rates by letting currencies depreciate (Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda), and by tightening monetary policy through an increase in reserve requirements and policy rates to contain inflationary pressures. The pass-through of nominal exchange rate depreciation, compounded by the impact of drought on the food supply and the removal of fuel subsidies, contributed to a rise in inflation in several countries. However, in some oil-importing countries (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) inflation eased, reflecting strong external disinflationary pressures from lower food and oil prices. Inflation also remained low in the CFA franc zone countries, where the currency has remained relatively stable thanks to its peg to the euro.

The countries with reductions in their CPIA scores are Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Sudan, The Gambia, and Zambia. Nigeria faced a challenging context for monetary and exchange rate policy in 2015. The slide in crude oil prices put downward pressure on the naira. The authorities responded in February 2015 by closing the official window for subsidized foreign exchange and moving interventions to the interbank market. This unified the official exchange rate with the interbank market rate, and allowed the naira to depreciate effectively by 14 percent. However, pressure on reserves continued as the oil price slipped further, and a large gap opened up between the official and unofficial exchange rates. The central bank subsequently introduced a series of administrative controls on foreign exchange transactions. In the face of dwindling reserves, the monetary authorities in Burundi also introduced exchange controls to support the currency, shifting foreign currency demand to the parallel market. In Zambia, monetary policy was not effective in achieving price and exchange rate stability, because of loose fiscal policy. In The Gambia, an overvalued exchange rate contributed to the worsening of the current account deficit and exacerbated financing difficulties.

In a few countries, monetary and exchange rate policy was strengthened. In Ghana, the central bank was responsive to the challenging macroeconomic situation in 2015. The monetary authorities adjusted the policy rate by 500 basis points, from 21 percent in January to 26 percent by December 2015, with the aim of stabilizing inflation and the exchange rate. Headline inflation remained elevated in 2015, but rose at a decreasing rate (mainly in response to the continued pass-through effect of utility and petroleum price increases). The government agreed to and implemented a zero limit on gross credit to the government from the central bank, and actually reduced its reliance on central bank financing in 2015. For Zimbabwe, the higher score reflects continued successful implementation of the International Monetary Fund Staff-Monitored Program (IMF SMP).

Fiscal Policy

This component assesses the stabilization and resource allocation aspects of fiscal policy. Fiscal challenges deepened in 2015, and fiscal positions weakened across the region. Fiscal outcomes in recent years have been generally weaker than in the pre-global financial crisis period (figure A.2). Overall, the regional fiscal policy score decreased by 0.1 point to 3.1 in 2015, the lowest level since 2006. Seven countries—mostly fragile or resource-rich countries—have lower scores; there was strengthening in this policy area in only three countries.

1 2

Several countries faced severe challenges and growing fiscal imbalances. Among these were fragile countries such as Burundi, South Sudan, and The Gambia. Burundi’s political crisis adversely impacted government revenues and grants, placing significant pressure on the fiscal budget. In The Gambia, consolidation efforts initiated in early 2015 were overturned by fiscal slippages, including delays in programmed spending cuts in the second quarter of 2015. On the revenue side, collection began to slow in May 2015, as the overvalued exchange rate reduced the imports tax base for import duties and value-added tax, and affected grants allocated for budget support and project financing. In Malawi, weak fiscal discipline undermined macroeconomic stability. Rising debt service costs, increasing wage demands, costly subsidy schemes, and the need to settle outstanding arrears continued to fuel a large fiscal deficit. With the government simultaneously recording increases in expenditures and decreases in receipts, Malawi’s fiscal position came under significant stress in fiscal year 2014/15. Development expenditures were cut and there was a large increase in domestic borrowing, which in turn pushed the country’s Extended Credit Facility program with the IMF off track.

High reliance on commodity-based revenues precipitated deep budgetary challenges in several commodity exporters. For example, Nigeria’s budgetary woes reflect exceedingly low non-oil tax revenue. In recent years, non-oil tax revenues have accounted for a mere 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With both oil prices and output significantly lower, revenue shortfalls emerged in 2015, despite conservative budgetary planning. In Zambia, static revenues and growing expenditures translated into a sharp deterioration in the fiscal deficit in 2015. A sharp increase in the cost of servicing interest on external debt (partly driven by the depreciation of the national currency and the nonconcessional nature of external debt contracted in recent years), an increase in fuel subsidies, and emergency power imports underpinned the higher deficit. In Mauritania, there was limited progress on strengthening fiscal policy. Fiscal consolidation efforts in the face of persistent terms-of-trade shock have not been adequate, resulting in a deterioration of the fiscal position in 2015. In South Sudan, falling oil prices and stagnating production sharply curtailed fiscal revenues. Nonetheless, the fiscal response to offset the effect of the contracting oil sector on the economy through expenditure rationalization and non-oil domestic revenue mobilization was limited. At the same time, external aid continued to decline

FIGURE A.2

Fiscal outcomes in recent years are worse than those registered before the global financial crisis

Source: World Economic Outlook, 2016

Fiscal Balance in Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2007–08 and 2014–15

Eritre

a Gh

ana

Burki

na Fa

so

Sene

gal

Liberi

a Ma

lawi

Ethiop

ia Gu

inea-

Bissau

Ma

uritan

ia Ke

nya

Burun

di Zim

babw

e Mo

zamb

ique

Mada

gasca

r Co

moros

Ta

nzan

ia Ug

anda

Su

dan

Togo

Za

mbia

Cabo

Verde

Co

ngo,

Demo

cratic

Repu

blic

Côte

d'Ivo

ire

Rwan

da

The G

ambia

Ce

ntral

Afric

an Re

publi

c Be

nin

Niger

Guine

a Nig

eria

Chad

Ca

meroo

n Sie

rra Le

one

Leso

tho

Cong

o, Re

publi

c -40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Mali

2007-08 2014-15

Over

all fi

scal

bal

ance

(% o

f GDP

)

1 3

because of the security crisis in the country. These shocks put significant pressure on the government budget, and the growing deficit was financed by domestic borrowing, mainly from the central bank.

Despite difficult economic conditions, a few Sub-Saharan African countries improved their fiscal performance in 2015. Notable among these was Ghana, where fiscal policy (under the IMF program) was aimed at restoring macroeconomic stability. The government made progress in implementing its fiscal consolidation strategy, as reflected in a near halving of the fiscal deficit from 10.2 percent of GDP in 2014 to 5.4 percent by end-October 2015. The progress on the fiscal account reflects relatively good tax and nontax revenue performance on the one hand, and a reduction in expenditure on the other hand. Elsewhere, commitment to fiscal prudence helped Zimbabwe meet the targets of its IMF SMP.

Progress was also made by the Central African Republic, which is rebuilding following a political and security crisis that started in 2013. A flare-up of violence in September 2015 weighed down economic growth and put public finances under great pressure. The fiscal deficit has been addressed through ad hoc measures, including tax control and comprehensive wage cuts, in addition to critical reforms at the revenue-generating departments and the treasury office. Importantly, the authorities established an adequate reserve to meet spending priorities.

Debt Policy

This component assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensure medium-term debt sustainability and minimize budgetary risks. The component covers (a) the extent to which external and domestic debt is contracted with a view to achieving/maintaining debt sustainability; and (b) the effectiveness of debt management functions.

Deteriorating fiscal balances have translated into rising indebtedness across Sub-Saharan Africa. Borrowing to support fiscal deficits since 2009, including through domestic markets and Eurobond issuance, has driven a net increase in public debt for all countries except oil exporters, which have benefitted (until recently) from buoyant commodity prices, and fragile states receiving post-2008 Highly Indebted Poor Country relief. In 2015, some oil exporters saw an increase in their public debt/GDP ratio, exceeding 15 points in the case of the Republic of Congo. The increase in debt burdens was more moderate in non-energy mineral-exporting countries, with the exceptions of Niger, Sierra Leone, and Zambia, where the public debt/GDP ratio rose by more than 10 percentage points. Elsewhere, this indicator was sharply higher in Mozambique and continued to climb in Ethiopia; and Kenya and Tanzania saw their debt levels increase by 5 percentage points on average. In several countries, the increase in government debt reflected rising infrastructure spending that should support potential growth over the medium term. In some cases (such as Tanzania), exchange rate depreciations also contributed to the rising debt levels. Overall, debt ratios in 2015 were well above the levels in 2011–13 (figure A.3).

Rising indebtedness, combined with unfavorable external conditions, is raising the specter of future debt sustainability problems. According to the results of the latest debt sustainability analysis, there has been an uptick in the number of low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that are considered at moderate and high risk of debt distress (figure A.4). Indeed, nine (26 percent) of 35 Sub-Saharan African countries are at high risk of debt distress, with Cameroon, Ghana, and Mauritania recently added to this category. The other six countries in this category are Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Sudan. Meanwhile, the number of countries at low risk of debt distress declined from 12 in 2014 to seven (or only 20 percent) in 2015.

1 4

In 2015, the quality of debt policy and management deteriorated in seven countries, while improving in only three. In the former group are Burundi, Cameroon, Lesotho, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Togo, and Zambia. In Burundi, rising domestic public debt combined with a very low export base continued to weigh on debt vulnerability. Signs of significant

accumulation of domestic arrears and growing delay in the payment of current expenditures, including salary payments, contributed to the weakening of the debt policy score. Although the country has adopted a debt management action plan, its implementation remains slow.

In Cameroon, the latest analysis of debt sustainability shows a marked deterioration in the country’s debt dynamics, moving the country from moderate risk of debt distress to high risk. The acceleration in the accumulation of debt since 2013, increasingly on nonconcessional terms, and the significant deterioration in the outlook for exports are the main causes of the higher risk rating. In addition, timely tracking of loan disbursements is inadequate, often leading to significant upward adjustments in external debt data. The

FIGURE A.3

There has been an increase in countries’ debt burdens. Ratios are well above those registered in 2011-13

Source: Africa’s Pulse. April 2016, Volume 13. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Public Debt Stocks (% of GDP)

Oil-resource-rich countries Non-resource-rich countries

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Suda

n Co

ngo,

Repu

blic

Sout

h Sud

an

Chad

Ni

geria

Cabo

Verd

e Th

e Gam

bia

São T

omé a

nd Pr

íncipe

M

aurit

ania

Ghan

a Zim

babw

e To

go

Moz

ambiq

ue

Keny

a Se

nega

l Le

soth

o Gu

inea-

Bissa

u Sie

rra Le

one

Nige

r M

ali

Cent

ral A

frica

n Rep

ublic

Za

mbia

Lib

eria

Guine

a Ta

nzan

ia M

adag

asca

r Be

nin

Ugan

da

Côte

d'Ivo

ire

Buru

ndi

Burki

na Fa

so

Rwan

da

Cam

eroon

Co

mor

os

Ethiop

ia Co

ngo,D

emoc

ratic

Repu

blic

Average 2011-13 2015

FIGURE A.4

The number of low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that are considered at “moderate” and “high” risk of debt distress has increased

Source: international Monetary Fund and World BankNote: Cut-off for data is March 18,2016

Evolution of Risk of Debt Stress over Time

10 10 13 13 13 12 127

8 1110 11 13 16 16

19

17 14 12 11 9 7 7 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Num

ber

of co

untri

es

Low Moderate High

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1 5

incomplete coverage of the contingent liabilities of state-owned enterprises is another shortcoming of Cameroon’s debt management: at the end of 2014, the payment arrears of these enterprises to the state was estimated at about 1.6 percent of GDP. The latest debt sustainability analysis also finds that the risk of debt distress for the Republic of Congo has shifted from low to moderate. The proportion of government service debt payments to revenue has grown rapidly, standing at 9 percent in 2014 compared with an average of 4.2 percent in 2013–14. Recorded domestic arrears continue to grow, and a planned audit of domestic arrears was not started.

The deterioration in Mozambique’s debt policy scores is reflective of the increase in fiscal risks and contingent liabilities in the country. Under the most recent Debt Sustainability Framework (prepared in November 2015), Mozambique remains at moderate risk of debt distress, but risks were heightened significantly following the sharp decline of the metical against the dollar. This has significant implications, as over 85 percent of the debt was denominated in foreign currency in 2015. The increase in public investment activity through public enterprises and private companies with significant government shareholdings, as well as public-private partnership arrangements, increases fiscal risks through heightened exposure to contingent liabilities. These events highlight the need to improve the monitoring and reporting of contingent liabilities. In Zambia, higher fiscal deficits and a rapid rise in the stock of public debt have heightened public debt vulnerabilities, pointing to the need for better monitoring of the contingent liabilities of the public sector, particularly the operations of state-owned enterprises.

Among favorable developments, three of the region’s countries saw stronger scores: Chad, Comoros, and Mali. Reforms to enhance debt management, coordination, and transparency underpinned the improvement in the scores in Chad and Comoros. In Comoros, a debt management strategy (including a report on the updated debt position) was prepared by the debt management directorate and included in the 2015 budget for the first time. In Chad, the regulatory framework for debt management was reinforced, thanks to a decree that was issued in June 2015 aimed at strengthening the organization and roles of the inter-ministerial committee for debt analysis and its associated technical units.

CLUSTER B: STRUCTURAL POLICIES

Cluster B covers policies affecting trade, the financial sector, and the business environment.

The regional average score for Cluster B was unchanged at 3.2 in 2015. There is considerable variation in scores across structural policies, with trade registering relatively stronger performance and that of the financial sector being lackluster.

Trade

The trade component assesses a country’s trade policy regime and trade facilitation. As in previous years, the CPIA scores for trade show remarkably little change in 2015. Only one country (Central African Republic) in the region registered an increase in the score for trade policy. Thus, the average trade score for the region remained at the 2014 level of 3.7.

The regional and global context in which Africa trades is changing fast, providing new challenges, especially as commodity prices adjust, but also opening more opportunities for countries in Africa—including through the rise in importance of global and regional value chains, the growing importance of

1 6

trade in services, and the enormous scope to develop agribusiness exports. The policy environment is also changing. The “mega-regional” trade agreements that will integrate countries across the Atlantic and Pacific may make market access more difficult in traditional as well as some key emerging markets. But at the same time, African countries can pursue more favorable trade policy conditions through movement toward the Continental Free Trade Area, Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Union, the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the World Trade Organization Bali agreement, and the benefits of implementing the Trade Facilitation Agreement.

A key challenge facing many African economies is the need to diversify away from dependence on a narrow range of mineral and commodity exports. These products have driven strong growth in export receipts and underpinned strong economic growth in Africa for much of the period since 2000. However, the nature of this growth has delivered little in terms of jobs and sustained poverty reduction. This conjuncture in the global economy offers many African economies an opportunity to recalibrate the structure of their exports toward a wider range of products that can be more effective in delivering inclusive growth. To achieve this will require that African countries more effectively embrace economic policy reforms, including reforms that remove trade barriers.

Among the key issues that need to be addressed are the high trade logistics costs and limited domestic competition that undermine the ability of African entrepreneurs to exploit new export opportunities. Africa’s infrastructure constraint is beginning to be addressed, but trade logistics costs remain high relative to other regions. In some cases, such as apparel, trade preferences can offset these high costs and are allowing new exports to emerge. But reducing trade costs will be essential to scale up and sustain these activities for long-term job creation and poverty reduction.

Importing (materials, machinery, technology, knowledge, and skills) to export is essential to be able to enter modern value chains. Hence, attention must be given to reducing the costs to import as well as export, by rationalizing procedures, including electronic submission of documents, disciplining the use of permits and licenses, improving access to trade-related information, and increasing

coordination between agencies involved in the trade process.

Competitive and efficient input and output markets are essential to support trade development, but African markets lack competition. The level of competition is lower in African countries than in competitors, and in many cases a single firm accounts for more than 50 percent of the market in key sectors, such as trucking services and fertilizer distribution.

FIGURE B.1

The gap between Africa’s average score for trade and that of East Asia has not narrowed in the past five years, with fragile countries performing worse than comparable countries in other regions


CPIA Score for Trade, by Country Group, 2015

SSA

IDA

East

Asia

Pacifi

c

Trad

e sco

re, 2

015

Frag

ile co

untri

es

in SS

A

Frag

ile co

untri

es o

utsid

e SSA

Non-

fragi

le co

untri

es in

SSA

Non-

fragi

le co

untri

es o

utsid

e SSA

3.3

3.7 3.9 4.0

3.7

4.0

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 7

The CPIA measure of trade provides a perspective on how well African countries are rising to this challenge of deepening trade reforms. There was little change in the country-level scores for trade in 2015. Looking back to 2010, more than 70 percent of the countries in Africa have not registered a change in the score for trade. A slight increase in the score was registered for 20 percent of the countries, while 8 percent saw a fall in the score. This suggests that African countries have not taken advantage of the good times provided by high commodity prices to reform trade policies further and, thereby, provide a more conducive environment for export diversification and more balanced growth for the new environment of low commodity prices and stagnating global demand for traditional export products. The gap between Africa’s average score for trade and that of East Asia, the region that has most successfully integrated into the global economy over the past two decades and where trade has been a key driver of poverty reduction, has not narrowed appreciably over the past five years (figure B.1). Moreover, Africa’s fragile countries sharply lag comparable countries in other regions on trade policy performance.

Financial Sector

The financial sector component measures policies and regulations that affect financial stability, efficiency, and access. The region’s average score remained stable at 2.9 in 2015, with only a few countries seeing a pullback. The regional score is on par with the average for all IDA countries, although non-fragile African countries have higher scores than comparable countries in other regions (figure B.2).

Although financial systems in Sub-Saharan Africa’s IDA borrowers remained broadly stable at a low score, risk profiles have been affected by the more difficult domestic and international macroeconomic environments, often following years of significant financial sector growth and changes in banking structures with the emergence of pan-African banks. Overall, the region’s financial systems have significant headline capital adequacy ratios and liquidity buffers, but nonperforming loan ratios remain high in many countries, government exposures are often significant, and foreign currency liquidity became scarcer in several countries.

Efforts to improve financial regulatory and supervisory regimes (including enforcement) continue, but progress toward complying with international standards is uneven. Most countries still do not implement effective risk-based supervision and are thus not well placed to identify risks at an early stage. Further and faster efforts are needed to ensure increased resilience as risks increase. Cooperation to improve supervision of cross-border banking groups is improving (for example, supervisory colleges were held for several large pan-African groups), but more systematic efforts are needed at the regional level (and information availability remains a constraint). The incipient efforts in a few countries to strengthen bank resolution and crisis management frameworks should be accelerated to ensure readiness to handle weaknesses that may emerge as a result of homegrown or international shocks.

FIGURE B.2

Non-fragile African countries have seen higher financial sector scores than comparable countries in other regions


Financial Sector Score, by Country Group, 2015

Frag

ile co

untri

es

in SS

A

Frag

ile co

untri

es o

utsid

e SSA

Non-

fragi

le co

untri

es in

SSA

Non-

fragi

le co

untri

es o

utsid

e SSA

IDA

Borro

wer

s

SSA

IDA

Fina

ncia

l sec

tor s

core

, 201

5

2.6 2.7

3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1 8

Access to finance remained low across countries in Africa, but continued to improve steadily. The latest 2014 Findex data indicate that over a third of the adult population in 2014 had an account at a financial institution. Sub-Saharan Africa remains an exception in the global picture for mobile money. Almost a third of account holders in the region—or 12 percent of all adults—reported having a mobile money account. Within this group, about half reported having a mobile money account and an account at a financial institution, and half reported having a mobile money account only. Mobile money accounts are especially widespread in East Africa, and are developing rapidly in some West African countries (for example, Côte d’Ivoire).

Financial intermediation continued to grow, but generally at a slower pace. The average ratio of credit to the non-financial private sector to GDP increased from 28 percent in 2014 to 29 percent in 2015. The ratio of banking assets to GDP reached 49 percent in 2014 for the entire Sub-Saharan Africa region. Since most financial systems are shallow and a large share of them focuses primarily on financing governments (via loans or investment in government bonds), small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) are typically left out. Some countries have managed to improve access to financial services for SMEs (notably Kenya, through provision of a wider set of products). Yet, the potential for improving access to this segment is large, and encouraging reform efforts toward this agenda should be accelerated.

Banks generally reported stable profits in 2014, partly due to competitive power, but largely driven by the need to compensate for huge operating costs. In several countries, spreads remain the focus of attention of policy makers that want to ensure broader access at more affordable rates. Only a handful of countries have noticeable financial markets beyond lending (insurance, pensions, and capital markets), following the bank-centric model prevailing in the region. However, several reforms are in progress or getting started (including at subregional levels) that are expected to deepen markets in Africa (such as subregional capital market integration, pension reforms, and strengthened government debt management to create a benchmark yield curve). Financial system diversification remains a priority for most countries.

The low average score of the financial sector points to the need for financial systems in Africa to continue to reform and improve. Increased attention needs to be paid to financial stability in a much more difficult economic environment, including measures to identify risks at an early stage, and have adequate powers to take action when a financial institution becomes distressed (including resolution regimes following the Financial Stability Board key attributes). More attention and efforts are needed to strengthen crisis preparedness and management.

Business Regulatory Framework

The business regulatory environment component of the CPIA assesses the extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private business in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. The three subcomponents measured are (a) regulations affecting entry, exit, and competition; (b) regulations of ongoing business operations; and (c) regulations of factor markets (labor and land).

The regional average score for the business regulatory environment in 2015 remained virtually unchanged at 3.1, tied with the average for all IDA countries (figure B.3). The flat regional trend reveals a homogenization in ratings for most Sub-Saharan African countries and overall an uneven movement in the three measured CPIA areas of business environment reforms. For the vast majority of countries in the region, the stagnant scores in 2015 reflect that (a) top reformers focused on quick-win reform areas

1 9

in business entry regulations in 2014/15, implementing fewer reforms in other areas of ongoing business operations such as operational licensing, permits, inspections as well as compliance systems related to paying taxes, and getting electricity and registering property; (b) the distance to the frontier in many Doing Business indicators is still high for many countries, despite some improvements; and (c) in a few cases, some reforms were not implemented although they were enacted (for example, Chad).

Two countries recorded an increase in their score for the business regulatory environment—Comoros (2.5 to 3.0) and Niger (3 to 3.5). One country registered a decrease—Madagascar (3.0 to 2.5). Ghana, Rwanda, Senegal, and Uganda were the top regional performers, with scores of 4.0 or higher. The business regulatory environment in several fragile countries, such as the Central African Republic, Chad, and Guinea Bissau, remained weak, posting scores of 2.5 and below.

Between 2014 and 2015, compared with other regions, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for the largest number of regulatory reforms for business environment. Among the enacted reforms to reduce the complexity and cost of regulatory processes, those in the area of starting a business were the most common, as in the previous year. Member countries of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa were particularly active: 14 of the 17 economies implemented business regulation reforms in the past year. Twenty-four of the reforms reduced the complexity and cost of regulatory processes, and five strengthened legal institutions (box B.1).

FIGURE B.3

The regional average score for the business regulatory environment in 2015 is 3.1, tied with the average for all IDA countries


Business Environment Score, by Country Group, 2015

Frag

ile co

untri

es

in SS

A

Frag

ile co

untri

es ou

tside

SSA

Non-

fragil

e co

untri

es in

SSA

Non-

fragil

e cou

ntrie

s ou

tside

SSA

IDA

Borro

wer

s

SSA

IDA

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Bus

ines

s env

ironm

ent s

core

, 201

5

2.7 2.6

3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1

In recent years, substantial regulatory reform efforts have been undertaken by the 17 member states of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, known by its French acronym OHADA. Among other things, the organization has encouraged member states to reduce their minimum capital requirements. Four member states passed national legislation to this effect in 2013/14. Seven did so in 2014/15, resulting in substantial decreases in the capital required. The Democratic Republic of Congo reduced its minimum capital requirement from 500 percent of income per capita in 2014 to 11 percent, and Burkina Faso reduced its requirement from 308 percent of income per capita to 29 percent.

OHADA also recommends that national governments eliminate the requirement for the use of notaries in company registration. The majority of member states have followed this recommendation, allowing companies to register at a one-stop shop online or in person, without the need to use a notary. But many entrepreneurs in OHADA economies still prefer to solicit notary services, out of habit and to ensure that the registration process runs smoothly. As experience in other economies shows, the practice of using notaries can be deeply rooted in the start-up process and business habits can take time to change.

BOX B.1

Regulatory Reforms in OHADA Countries

2 0

Globally, five of the top 10 countries that implemented the most regulatory reforms in 2015 were from Sub-Saharan Africa: Benin, Kenya, Mauritania, Senegal, and Uganda. All implemented reforms aimed at improving company registration processes, with additional reforms in the areas of paying taxes, getting electricity, and registering property. Senegal (with four reforms) and Benin (with three) joined the list of top improvers for the second year in a row.

Mauritania eliminated the minimum capital requirement, while Senegal lowered it. Uganda introduced an online system for obtaining trading licenses and reduced business incorporation fees. Benin and Uganda reduced business incorporation fees. The five countries also introduced changes in other areas—for example, reducing property transfer procedures by improving electronic document management at the land registry, and introducing a unified form for registration (Kenya).

Sub-Saharan African countries still lag in the distance to the frontier across all Doing Business indicators, and there is considerable variation in distance from the frontier among them

Source: Doing Business indicators, 2016.

Source: Doing Business indicators 2016.Note: Fragile countries are in red color

FIGURE B.4 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business Indicators, 2015

FIGURE B.5 Distance to Frontier on Doing Business, by Country, 2015

57

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overall Distance to Frontier

Starting a business

Dealing with construction

permits

Paying taxes Registering property

Enforcing contracts

Trading across borders

Getting electricity

Protecting minority investors

Getting credit Resolving insolvency

DTF

(1-1

00, m

axim

um is

100

)

Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries Non-Sub-Saharan Africa IDA countries

48

75

55 50 48 46 45 43

33 28

55

81

65 67

52 50

62 59

48 41

28

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DTF (

1-10

0, m

axim

um is

100

)

Eritre

aSo

uth S

udan

Cent

ral Af

rican

Repu

blic

Cong

o, De

mocra

tic R

epub

licCh

adLib

eria

Guine

a-Bis

sau

Cong

o, Re

pubic

Came

roon

Nige

riaMa

uritan

iaSã

o Tom

é and

Prínc

ipeGu

inea

Mada

gasca

rNi

ger

Suda

nBe

ninZim

babw

eCo

moros

Sene

gal

Burun

diGa

mbia,

The

Togo

Sierra

Leon

eEth

iopia

Mali

Burki

na Fa

soCô

te d'I

voire

Malaw

iTa

nzan

iaMo

zamb

ique

Cabo

Verd

eUg

anda

Leso

tho

Ghan

aKe

nya

Zamb

iaRw

anda

2 1

Overall, Sub-Saharan African countries, in particular West and Central African countries, have shown a trend of successfully implementing business registration reforms, compared with the more complex reforms pertaining to land and property registration (with the exception of some countries that regularly improve in that area—Kenya, Senegal, and Uganda). Across the region, Rwanda has the highest global ranking (62) after Mauritus. Rwanda has implemented the largest number of reforms in the region, with six reforms carried out in the past year. The country ranks second in the world on the Getting Credit indicator and 12th on the Registering Property indicator. Ten years ago, it took an entrepreneur in Rwanda 370 days to transfer property. Now it takes 32 days, which is fewer than in Germany. But the region still lags in the distance to the frontier across all Doing Business indicators, and there is considerable variation in distance to the frontier across the countries in the region (figures B.4 and B.5).

CLUSTER C: SOCIAL INCLUSION AND EQUITY

A wide range of policy areas, such as gender equality, equity of public resource use, human development, social protection, and environmental sustainability, are covered under this cluster.

The regional score for Cluster C was 3.2 in 2015, continuing the flat trend observed since 2012.

Gender Equality

The gender equality component assesses the extent to which a country has enacted and put in place institutions and programs to enforce laws and policies that promote equal access for men and women to human capital development and productive and economic resources, and which give men and women equal status and protection under the law. The average score for this category has remained at 3.2 since 2005, reflecting not only the large gender inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also the difficulty of changing norms about gender.

The average performance on the human development aspects of gender equality is lower than performance on the economic opportunity and legal protection aspects. However, within individual countries there is remarkably little difference in performance across the three areas considered for the gender equality section of the CPIA. For example, countries that score at the lower end of the spectrum for gender equality in human development tend to do similarly poorly on gender equality in economic opportunity and legal protection. This suggests that many of the gender challenges that countries face are interrelated, and that making progress in one area can help countries boost progress in other areas. If a country does not provide women equal access to education, it is unlikely that those women would be able to compete on an equal footing with men for scarce jobs; if a country does not protect women from discrimination in terms of gender-based violence or access to assets, it is not likely that those women would be able to start their own businesses or participate in society on an equal footing with men.

The CPIA scores for gender equality highlight the negative impact of fragility and conflict. Eight of the 10 lowest-scoring countries on the gender component of the CPIA are fragile states: Central African

2 2

Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, South Sudan, and Sudan. The average score for all fragile countries is 3.0, compared with 3.4 for non-fragile ones. Fragile countries perform particularly poorly on human development indicators and providing equal protection for men and women under the law. This is not surprising, as fragility and conflict tend to disrupt access to basic social services and infrastructure and expose women to higher levels of gender-based violence, partly because of the collapse of justice and security institutions and partly because violence is sometimes used as a purposeful strategy by fighting forces. Men also suffer, as they are more likely to be forced into fighting and may face challenges reintegrating into society and the economy once the conflict is over. Box C.1 describes new evidence on policies that are helping women and men in fragile states.

There is a growing body of evidence on policies to address the gender-related constraints that women and

men face in fragile states. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, an impact evaluation, supported by the

World Bank and U.S. Agency for International Development (Bass et al. 2013), found that providing cognitive

processing therapy to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence reduced participants’ probability

of depression or anxiety from 71 to 9 percent, reduced their probability of post-traumatic stress disorder

from 60 to 9 percent, and improved their function-impairment from “moderate” to “little.” This evidence is

particularly exciting because this type of intervention can be implemented in settings of ongoing conflict,

with few mental health professionals and high rates of illiteracy. For interventions targeting men, there is

evidence that programs that address multiple constraints simultaneously can help reintegrate ex-combatants

and prevent them from being re-recruited into fighting forces. In Liberia, an impact evaluation by Blattman

and Annan (2015) found that providing ex-combatants with agricultural training, capital inputs, and

counseling led to higher profits and reduced illicit and mercenary activity. In contrast, providing the training

by itself (without capital) had a relatively small impact.

Human Capital Development

Over the past 15 years, the region has been rapidly closing the gender gap in enrollment at the primary

level. Progress has been slower at the secondary level, where there is still an average female-to-male

enrollment ratio of just 86 percent (up from 81 percent in 2000). This compares poorly with all other

developing regions: over 100 percent in East Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, 98

percent in Europe and Central Asia, and 94 percent in the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia.

One of the main issues behind girls dropping out of school after the primary level is early marriage and

childbearing. Between 2000 and 2014, the average rate of adolescent fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa

declined from 128 to 103 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19. However, this level of adolescent fertility is

still much higher than the averages seen in other regions of the world: 23 in East Asia and the Pacific, 28 in

Europe and Central Asia, 65 in Latin American and the Caribbean, 42 in the Middle East and North Africa,

and 35 in South Asia.

Across many countries in the region, girls and their families face social and economic pressures that

push girls out of school and toward early marriage and childbearing. There is strong evidence that cash

transfers can be effective at countering these pressures and keeping girls in school. In Malawi, Baird et al.

(2010) found that a cash transfer, conditional on school attendance, increased girls’ attendance by three

BOX C.1

Policies to Address Gender-Related Constraints in Fragile Situations: Some New Evidence

2 3

to four times. Conditionality appears to be a key factor behind the success of programs in specifically targeting girls’ school attendance. An impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program in Burkina Faso showed that conditional transfers were significantly more effective than unconditional transfers at increasing the enrollment of girls and countering the tendency of families to focus their limited resources on boys’ education (Akresh, De Walque, and Kazianga 2013). Cash transfers have also been shown to reduce early marriage and childbearing, although for these impacts keeping transfers unconditional allows programs to reach the most vulnerable girls who may have already dropped out of school (Baird et al. 2010). These impacts are important given the challenges many African countries face with high population growth, which dampens the poverty-reducing impacts of economic growth.

Access to Productive and Economic Resources

Although women’s labor force participation is almost equal to men’s in many African countries, the types of economic opportunities available to women are quite different. Women are more likely to work in the informal sector, have less access to assets with which to start or expand their own businesses, and tend to be concentrated in occupations considered suitable for them according to prevailing social norms. Some of these issues will not necessarily recede automatically as countries become richer. For example, sex segregation in the labor market can be seen even in high-income economies, with women often underrepresented in science and technology jobs and overrepresented in care-giving jobs. This situation is suboptimal for society because it represents an inefficient allocation of human resources, and it has adverse implications for women because traditionally male-dominated jobs and sectors tend to have higher pay and profits. Emerging evidence for Ethiopia and Uganda, generated by the World Bank’s Gender Innovation Lab, suggests that women entrepreneurs are more able to cross over into higher-earning male-dominated sectors when they have access to information about the higher profits they could earn in those sectors and when they have a close male role model (Campos et al. 2014; World Bank 2015). This research is ongoing and could point to some possible policy directions for addressing occupational sex segregation and increasing women’s earnings.

Equality and Status and Protection under the Law

Women’s legal and social status influences the degree to which they are able to operate freely in society on a level footing with men. Africa continues to make progress at the level of national institutions, with the proportion of parliamentary seats held by women doubling from 12 to 24 percent between 2000 and 2015. On this indicator, Rwanda leads the world, with 64 percent of its parliamentary seats held by women. However, this progress does not speak to the constraints faced by the majority of women in African countries, with much lower female representation at lower levels of government, laws and customary practices that restrict women’s ability to inherit assets or make key household decisions, and high levels of gender-based violence.

Equity of Public Resource Use

This category of the CPIA assesses the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities. The measure focuses on three subcomponents: measurement issues; priorities and strategies, especially those related to the poor and vulnerable groups; and revenue collection, covering the incidence of major taxes, for example, whether they are progressive or regressive. The measurement subcomponent covers the extent

2 4

to which poverty measurement, monitoring, and evaluation instruments exist, and the degree to which poverty-related information is made available to the public.

The average score for this overall category was unchanged at 3.3, with few countries recording changes. The gap in scores between fragile and non-fragile country groups continued to remain large (figure C.1). Côte d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe reported a 0.5-point increase in the score,

from 2.5 to 3.0. The increase in the score for Côte d’Ivoire reflects the country’s efforts to conduct frequent household surveys, particularly the new ENV household survey, which was conducted in 2015, to monitor poverty and other socioeconomic indicators, and the finalization of the poverty analysis report “ENV 2015, Profil de Pauvrete (July 2015),” with poverty incidence and trends being made available on the INS website.

The increase in the score for Zimbabwe reflects the country’s efforts to use poverty data in designing a proxy means test to target poor households, and also to assess the benefit incidence of public spending. Examples include the 2015 Health Public Expenditure Review, and the micro-data of the 2014 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey conducted by ZIMSTAT, which was made publicly available in April 2015. These efforts were in addition to conducting a public expenditure review of the primary and secondary education and health sectors to examine important themes of the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of public, household, and donor expenditures in 2015, as well as the rollout of results-based budgeting.

Elsewhere, Cabo Verde and Gambia saw a decline in the score, from 4.0 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 3.0, respectively. The slippage in the score for Cabo Verde reflects the capacity gaps in line ministries to provide input indicators for the monitoring and evaluation framework. It also reflects that after 2014 several tax exemptions were abolished, resulting in increases in the value-added tax rate from 6 percent to the now national level of 15 percent.

An important subcomponent of the CPIA criteria for equality of public resource use is that of measurement, which covers the extent to which poverty measurement, monitoring, and evaluation instruments exist, and the degree to which poverty-related information is made available to the public. One such measurement tool is the household survey, which is essential in the collection of socioeconomic data, which are used to understand the welfare of populations. Household surveys are especially critical in monitoring poverty. Data on consumption or income are necessary for determining the poverty status of households, and these data are collected using sample surveys that are representative of the population. Efforts toward reporting progress made on the World Bank’s twin goals—ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity—and the World Bank’s mandate to collect at least one consumption survey every three years have strengthened such efforts. As such, there are already some gains and more new

FIGURE C.1

For equity of public resource use, the gap in scores between fragile and non-fragile country groups continued to remain large

Average CPIA Score for Equity of Public Resource Use, by Country Group, 2015

Source: CPiA database

3.3

2.9

3.6

2.0

2.3

2.6

2.9

3.2

3.5

3.8

SSA IDA Fragile countries in SSA

Non-fragile countries in SSA

Equi

ty of

publ

ic re

sour

ce us

e sco

re, 2

015

2 5

surveys are conducted now than ever before. For the first time, there have been some positive experiences in Africa in the collection of household survey data. Currently, about nine countries have just completed or are conducting new surveys, including Kenya (2015/16), Lesotho (2015), Mauritius (2016), Namibia (2014/15), Nigeria (2015), Sierra Leone (2015), Swaziland (2015), and Togo (2015). In addition, more than half of the countries in the region have recently completed consumption surveys (map C.1). Also see box C.2.

MAP C.1

More than half of the countries in Africa have recently completed consumption surveys

Source: AFR Stats team, Poverty and Equity Global Practice, World Bank.

Consumption Surveys, by Country

MauritiusMadagascar

Seychelles

Comoros

LesothoSouthAfrica

Swaziland

BotswanaNamibia

ZimbabweMozambique

MalawiZambia

Angola

Dem. Rep. ofCongo

Rwanda

Burundi

Tanzania

Kenya

Somalia

Ethiopia

Gabon

Central AfricanRepublic

Cameroon

Sudan

South Sudan

EritreaChad

NigerMali

Burkina FasoBenin

Nigeria

TogoEquatorial Guinea

São Tomé and Príncipe

GhanaCôte

d’IvoireLiberia

Sierra Leone

GuineaGuinea-Bissau

Senegal

Mauritania

The Gambia

CaboVerde

UgandaRep. ofCongo

IBRD 42366 | JUNE 2016This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

2007 and earlier2008 to 20112012 and laterNo data

General Services

Budget, Performance Review& Strategic Planning

Printing & Multimedia

BOX C.2

Coverage of Consumption Surveys is Improving in Africa

The number of consumption surveys averages 40 for every five years for Africa. This is less than one survey

per country every five years. But stagnation in the number of surveys is not the only concern involving

consumption surveys. Another concern is uneven country coverage. An estimate of 40 surveys for 48

countries in Africa might give the impression that one data point on consumption is available every five years

for most countries. However, this is not the case. Between 1990 and 1999, 18 of 47 countries in Africa did not

conduct a single survey with consumption data that could be used for poverty monitoring (figure BC.2.1).

Among the remaining 29 countries, 12 had only one data point. Thus, for an entire decade, nothing can be

said on 30 of 47 countries in the region (66 percent of the total population) about changes in poverty or other

indicators of well-being measured using consumption data. One positive development is that the coverage

improved in 2000–09, so that there were only four countries without a single consumption survey during the

period, but 20 countries had only one survey each during this period.

Although the lack of consumption surveys is an obvious impediment to monitoring poverty, the problems

with consumption surveys do not end there. Even when surveys exist, they may not be available or they

may be of poor quality or not comparable with other surveys in the country. Further, there are cross-country

comparability issues. Such problems make tracking poverty over time difficult. The literature on survey

design documents multiple ways in which two surveys can be rendered non-comparable based on (a)

representativeness of the survey sample, (b) seasonality, (c) reporting period, and (d) list of consumption items.

2 6

BOX C.2Continued

Statistical capacity describes a country’s ability to collect, analyze, and disseminate high-quality data about its population and economy. Good quality statistics are essential for evidence-based decision-making and for achieving better development results. Countries in fragile situations on average report lower statistical capacity compared with non-fragile countries. The statistical capacity indicator for Sub-Saharan African countries is 60 percent; it is about 51 percent for countries in fragile situations, and 64 percent for non-fragile countries.4 Although fragile countries have low statistical capacity on average, there has been progress since 2005 (figure C.2).

4 The Statistical Capacity Indicator provides an overview of the statistical capacity of developing countries. It is based on a diagnostic framework that was developed to assess the capacity of statistical systems. The framework consists of three assessment areas: methodology, data sources, and periodicity and timeliness (institutional framework has not been included in the calculation of the score). Countries are scored against specific criteria in these areas, using input provided by countries and/or publicly available.

FIGURE BC.2.1

Coverage of consumption surveys has improved but is uneven across decades

FIGURE BC.2.2

Lack of comparability of consumption surveys is particularly severe in Sub-Saharan Africa

Therefore, although the frequency of data collection is a valid concern, given that there are still

many countries in which only one or two surveys have been conducted in 25 years, the more serious

shortcoming is that even most of the resulting consumption data are not comparable. A simple count

of the number of surveys that

are comparable per country

from the past 23 years shows

that there are two or more

comparable surveys in only 28

of 48 countries (figure BC.2.2).

This is the reason countries

that appear to be data rich (or

have multiple surveys) are still

unable to track poverty over

time.

18 16 15 15 12 12 8 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2

12 13 13 16 18 21

25 24

21 24 20 19 18 18

26

3 8 8 6 7 4 4

8 9

8 11 12 14 14

7

10 3 4 4 5 4 6 7 9 6 8 8 9 10 8

4 7 7 6 5 6 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 474747 47 47 474747 47474747 484848

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990-1999 1991-2000 1992-2001 1993-2002 1994-2003 1995-2004 1996-2005 1997-2006 1998-2007 1999-2008 2000-2009 2001-2010 2002-2011 2003-2012 2004-2013

Num

ber o

f cou

ntrie

s

No data point One data point Two data points (interval of 6 years or longer) Two data points (interval of 5 years or shorter) Three or more data points

6

3.8 3.5

1.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

World Average Sub-Saharan Africa comparable

Cons

umpt

ion

surv

eys p

er co

ount

ry,

1990

-201

2

1990 2012

Number of Poverty Data Points over 10-Year Periods in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2013

Comparable Consumption Surveys per Country, 1990–2012

Source: World Bank compilation from the microdata library and Africa Poverty Report, World Bank.

2 7

Building Human Resources

The human development component of the CPIA assesses the quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education. The human development CPIA score for Sub-Saharan Africa was unchanged in 2015 at 3.5. The gap between resource-rich countries (score 3.3) and non-resource-rich countries (score 3.6) remained substantial, as did that between fragile countries (score 3.2) and non-fragile countries (score 3.8).

Health

The average score for the health component mirrors the flat trend of the human development CPIA score. With the exception of three countries, this trend is evident at the country level as well. The average CPIA score for the health component is 3.4, with over 65 percent of countries registering scores equal to or higher than a score of 3.5. Many countries now develop medium–term strategic plans (for example, five-year strategic plans for health sector development), but the unchanged scores reflect that countries are continuing to implement the same plan through the same system. The Ebola-affected countries have taken initiatives to strengthen their health systems to improve resilience to future such occurrences. Many countries still rely on survey data for information on service coverage, total fertility rate, and out-of-pocket payments. As these surveys are undertaken periodically with intervals of a few years, not all countries have annual updates of such information. For the same reason, impacts on service use and health outcomes from ongoing conflicts may not always be captured.

Overall, the health component of the CPIA remained at 2014 levels. Countries with a low score are typically fragile and conflict-affected countries, such as the Central African Republic, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and South Sudan, featuring limited coverage of essential services, weak governance, inadequate health financing, and limited quality data to track progress. Fragility is a significant development challenge faced in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Health outcomes in the region’s fragile countries are affected by low income and state fragility. Figure C.3 shows that the disadvantage in life expectancy, maternal mortality ratio, and under-five mortality associated with fragility is largest in low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by lower-middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and smallest in lower-middle-income countries outside Sub-Saharan African countries. The total fertility rate is the only exception, showing an opposite trend. This is likely because the benchmark is so high in low-income African countries, so that the effect of fragility shows more in more developed settings.

Those countries with strong scores (Burundi, Cabo Verde, Ethiopia, and Rwanda) have shown particular focus on accountability and results, strong governance systems, and solid progress toward improving

FIGURE C.2

The statistical capacity indicator for Sub-Saharan African countries is 60 percent. Fragile countries have shown progress since 2005

Source: World Development indicators. Note: The Statistical Capacity indicator is based on a diagnostic framework that was developed to assess the capacity of a country’s statistical systems. The framework consists of three assessment areas: methodology, data sources, and periodicity and timeliness (institutional framework has not been included in the calculation of the score). SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.

Statistical Capacity Indicator (SCI)

46 47 46 44 46 47 49 50 51 51 53 57 57 57 56 57 58 59 59 60 59 60 61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 64

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Statistical Capacity Indicator (SCI)

Fragile countries in SSA Sub-Saharan Africa Non-fragile countries in SSA

2 8

health outcomes. Some of their flagship programs have played pivotal roles in improving health system performance and health outcomes. For example, Ethiopia has a government-led Health Extension Program that institutionalized community-based service delivery, expanding service coverage at a relatively low cost. Rwanda is known for its community-based health insurance, which provides financial protection from catastrophic health expenditure at the national scale. Burundi has a results-based financing program that pays service providers based on results that are critical for health outcomes (for example, the score for coverage of skilled attendance and facility quality), and enhances accountability for results.

Inefficiencies in health financing systems continue to be an area of concern. In many countries, limited public sector commitment has been replaced by large out-of-pocket spending, low efficiency in resource utilization, and mismatch of resources with population needs. Figure C.4 shows a high correlation between CPIA scores and the share of public expenditure in total health expenditure. In the group with the highest score, the share of public expenditure is more than 60 percent; in the group with the lowest score, it is 25 percent. Admittedly, not too much should be loaded onto a single indicator. What is important behind this correlation is the extent of financial protection against catastrophic expenditure, ownership and leadership of government in the governance system, and efficient use of external assistance that tends to create fragmentation.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Num

ber o

f yea

rs

0

200

400

600

800

Num

ber o

f pr

egna

nt w

omen

d

eath

per

100

, 000

live

birt

hs

Non-fragile countries Fragile countries

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Num

ber o

f birt

hs p

er w

oman

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Low income-SSA Lower middle income-SSA

Lower-middle income-non-SSA










Unde

r-5 m

orta

lity r

ate p

er 1,

000 l

ive b

irths

Life Expectancy Total Fertility Rate

Maternal Mortality Ratio Under-Five Mortality Rate

FIGURE C.3

The disadvantage in life expectancy, maternal mortality ratio, and under-five mortality associated with fragility is largest in low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The exception is total fertility rate, which shows an opposite trend

Health Outcomes by Income Category, Region, and Fragility

Source: World Development indicators, 2016.

2 9

Education

The score for education remained at 3.5, the same as for 2014. There were few changes, with the exception of improved scores for Madagascar and Sudan. Figure C.5 shows that nearly three-quarters of Sub-Saharan African IDA countries have an education score at or above 3.5. For these countries, nearly 19 percent of government expenditure is on education.

Sub-Saharan Africa has made substantial strides in expanding education coverage in recent decades, with average net primary enrollment increasing from 56 to 79 percent in the past 20 years (World Bank 2016a). While there is still work to be done in improving access, these advances are shifting the focus onto improving education quality alongside access to education across the region. Teachers are a crucial component of education quality, with the difference between a good and bad teacher having been measured at up to a full year of student learning (Hanushek and Rivkin 2010). It has been shown that good teachers significantly improve students’ long-term outcomes, such as graduation rates, adult salaries, and teenage pregnancy rates (Chetty et al. 2014).

At the same time, the quality of teachers in Africa falls short. Across six countries, the number of teachers who pass a minimum knowledge standard – 80 percent on a test of math and language – is fewer than one in six. Likewise, absenteeism from school exceeds 20 percent, and absenteeism from the classroom, conditional on being in school, is higher than 40 percent (World Bank 2016b). Clearly, these teachers are not helping students to realize their full potential.

One important determinant of teachers’ ability to improve student learning is the training they receive. Despite the significant resources spent on teacher training programs in Africa, evidence for the small share of programs that have been evaluated is mixed, and current programs are often characterized as

FIGURE C.4

Inefficiencies in health financing systems continue to be an area of concern. The share of public expenditure in total health expenditure is higher in countries with a higher CPIA score in health

FIGURE C.5

Nearly three- quarters of countries in Sub-Sharan Africa have on education CPIA score of 3.5 or higher

Source: World Development indicators, 2016 and CPiA database.


Public Expenditure Share of Total Health Expenditure, by CPIA Health Component Score in 2015

Distribution of the CPIA score for Education, 2015

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Pub

lic e

xpen

ditu

re in

tota

l he

alth

expe

nditu

re (%

)

Health score, 2015

4

6

16

10

2

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Num

ber o

f cou

ntrie

s

Education score, 2015

3 0

BOX C.3

Teachers and the Quality of Education in Africa: What Seems to Work

outdated and over-theoretical. Teachers in Sub-Saharan Africa tend to enter pre-service training or begin classroom activity with low levels of education themselves, and transition into short, one-off in-service training courses centrally planned by the government on expedient topics such as the introduction of new curricula (Lauwerier and Akkari 2015). Yet, there are some successful examples of in-service teacher training in Africa, which offer hope to the large array of less effective programs (box C.3). As the drive to improve quality increases, it will be crucial to identify the political will and resources to reform teacher training and help teachers to help students to achieve their potential.

To shed light on the teacher training programs that are most effective in Africa, a recent study (Popova, Evans, and Arancibia 2016) identified seven in-service teacher training programs in the region that have been evaluated, measuring student learning outcomes.

With such a small sample, one cannot draw strong conclusions. However, the combination of continued support (not just a one-off training session), accompanying resources, and an emphasis on practice and tailoring teaching to the level of learning of the student seems to be responsible for positive impacts on student learning (Evans and Popova 2015). For example, the Early Grade Reading Assessment program in Liberia, which trained teachers to use an initial reading assessment and then continually assess student performance, increased students’ reading comprehension by 0.79 standard deviation (Piper and Korda 2011). Another example is the Reading to Learn intervention, which improved literacy scores in Uganda by providing schools with local-language materials and training teachers to use these and conduct learning assessments, as well as providing them with regular mentoring (Lucas et al. 2014). At the same time, bringing quality training to scale will be a future challenge: a teacher training program in Uganda that was highly effective when the training was implemented by a social enterprise saw its positive impacts dissipate under a lower cost version that used government workers to implement the training (Kerwin and Thornton 2015).

There are successful examples of in-service teacher training in Africa, which offers hope to the large array of less effective programs. As the drive to improve quality increases, it will be crucial to identify the political will

and resources to reform teacher training and help teachers to help students to achieve their potential.

Adapted from Popova, Anna, David K. Evans, and Violeta Arancibia, “Inside In-Service Teacher Training: What Works, and How Do We Measure it?” June 2016.

Social Protection and Labor

Social protection and labor systems help build resilience to shocks, improve equity, and build opportunities by helping people and families find jobs, improve productivity, and invest in the health and education of their children.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, given the low level of formal employment, pension systems and labor market insurance tend to be fairly modest. They generally cover a small share of the population—civil servants and those employed in the small formal sector. The main aspects of social protection in Africa are represented by safety nets (or social assistance), which aim to provide protection for the poorest and most vulnerable, and incentivize them to improve their livelihoods and participate productively in society. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there is a wide variety of experience with social safety nets—in some countries (such as Chad), these are nascent and still testing targeting and payment mechanisms while gradually expanding; in other countries (such as Ethiopia), these are highly developed operations that have a strong institutional framework and tried and tested delivery systems capable of scaling up when a shock occurs. The CPIA ratings follow this heterogeneity, with low scores for food insecure and conflict-affected countries, and higher scores for the more stable countries with stronger social protection systems.

3 1

Despite this heterogeneity across the continent, social protection is becoming a core instrument in the effort to reduce poverty. More and more African countries are preparing social protection strategies to serve as the foundation on which to build effective and efficient social protection systems. In particular, safety nets are placed high on governments’ agendas. The recent shocks of the Ebola epidemic and now the El Niño drought demonstrate the need for a national, scalable social safety net.5

In countries that experience repeated crises, it can be challenging to transition between immediate humanitarian response and a longer-term safety net that strengthens resilience. Only a few years ago, the most common social safety net programs were school feeding programs, public work programs, emergency and categorical transfer programs, and general subsidies with low coverage of the poor. Very gradually, there is an increasing representation of national poverty-targeted cash transfers (including in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Tanzania).

To improve this continuum, further investigation is needed into the effectiveness of food distribution and emergency relief programs. Basic data on the number of beneficiaries reached and information about program outcomes are imperative to improve the design and coordination of programs, keep decision makers informed, and attract financial resources. Increasingly, impact evaluations are being undertaken, contributing to a growing body of evidence on safety net programs in Africa.

There was almost no change in the CPIA ratings in this category between 2014 and 2015. On the positive side, there were no downgrades, even for countries experiencing conflict. On the contrary, two of the poorest countries, Chad and Guinea, increased their ratings slightly (from 2.5 to 3.0 in each case). In both cases, the government has put renewed priority on safety nets, developed a strategy, and scaled up the social assistance program.

In Chad, a comprehensive and well-structured National Social Protection Strategy was approved in July 2015. The strategy is a cross-sector document that includes four main areas: (a) assistance or social aid to extremely poor households and individuals (transfers in cash or in kind, exemptions from fees, and grants); (b) social insurance and labor market policies; (c) food security and nutrition; and (d) social services such as health and education in support of marginalized groups. The strategy offers a concrete road map and a set of clear priority actions to reform the legal, institutional, and financial framework of the sector. The upgrade in ratings derived from improvements in the social safety net, which is now quite comprehensive and includes the following: (a) emergency response to a crisis situation; (b) access of poor households to basic social services; and (c) assistance to specific vulnerable groups such as orphans, widows, and disabled persons. Much of the social safety net system is funded by development partners; just over a quarter of total safety net spending in 2014 was funded by the government, although on a relatively stable basis. There are some coordination issues and inclusion errors that could be reduced with stronger institutional mechanisms.

In Guinea, too, a National Social Protection Policy and a Safety Net Strategy are being developed with the support of development partners. The new strategies are expected to be ready and adopted by the government in 2016. After years of stagnation, social safety net expenditures—from the state budget and international development partners—increased significantly. This large scale-up reflects the government’s new priorities for the social sectors.

The Government of Guinea achieved this progress despite the additional and severe pressure on the social safety net system caused by the Ebola crisis and the economic and social repercussions of the

5 The World Bank’s focus is on establishing safety net systems through which government and other development partners’ resources may be channeled.

3 2

disease’s diffusion, death toll, and changes in behaviors. The impact on the livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable has been significant: 83 percent of households in regions affected by Ebola have seen their agricultural production capacities decline. The government’s post-Ebola Recovery Strategy highlights social services, including social protection, among the country’s development priorities. Safety nets are expected to play a central role as the main tool to strengthen resilience in communities affected by Ebola. Some existing safety nets, such as the cash-for-work component of the Productive Safety Nets project, proved to be an effective short-term response to the economic impact of the crisis. With the support of development partners, other safety net programs (school feeding programs, cash transfers, psychological support to children, and community mobilization) were implemented in communities affected by the virus to limit the current and long-term impacts of the Ebola epidemic.

Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability

The environmental and natural resource management (ENRM) component of the CPIA relies on a standard scoring tool that measures (a) the appropriateness and implementation of policies across a range of environmental topics: air pollution, water pollution, solid and hazardous waste, freshwater resources, marine and coastal resources, biodiversity, commercial renewable resources (mainly forests and fish), commercial nonrenewable resources (mainly minerals), and climate change; and (b) the strength of cross-cutting institutional systems, including the quality of the environmental impact assessment system, and a range of environmental governance factors, including access to information, participation, coordination, and accountability.

The regional average CPIA score for ENRM in Sub-Saharan Africa was 3.2. Individual country scores ranged from 2.0 to 4.0, with 70 percent of the countries (27 of 38) scoring either 3.0 or 3.5. Scores of 3.0 or 3.5 for this component generally indicate countries with relatively comprehensive environmental policies, but with gaps between policy and implementation.

Although the regional average score has remained steady, the score increased in six countries in 2015, and decreased in one. The Central African Republic and Mali made modest improvements in environmental assessment, capacity building in line ministries, and planning for climate action, which allowed the score to move up from 2.0 to 2.5. Ethiopia’s score was upgraded in recognition of its relatively strong performance in several areas, including access to information and accountability, and water resources management. The Democratic Republic of Congo’s forest sector programs have initiated some action on accountability and indoor air pollution (through improved cook stoves), which pushed its overall score to 3.0. Togo and Zimbabwe have continued broad reforms of environmental systems and specific policies that have taken them to an overall score of 3.5. By contrast, Tanzania’s overall score declined to 3.5, pulled down by the poaching crisis affecting its protected areas.

Despite few changes in final national scores, 13 of the 14 measures of institutional and subsector performance that contribute to the ENRM assessment show a steadily improving performance trend, but in most cases the gains were modest. Accountability showed the strongest improvement (six countries improved their rating and nine declined), despite remaining one of the lowest-scoring metrics overall. The two other lowest-scoring metrics, air pollution and water pollution, also showed steady improvement (three improved), as did the highest-scoring sector-specific metric, ecosystems & biodiversity (five countries improved, one declined). Management of renewable resources showed no net change (one country improved, one declined), and management of nonrenewable resources was the only metric to decline overall (by two countries, with one improving).

3 3

Relative performance across the 14 metrics was similar to previous years:

u All the institutional measures except accountability (public access to information, participation, environmental assessment, and coordination) were within the top six performers by average score. The improvements in accountability saw it move from 13th position to 12th (despite improved performance in all three of the lowest metrics), but it remains a long way behind the other institutional measures.

u Ecosystems & biodiversity management and climate change were again the best-performing sector-specific measures.

u As in previous years, pollution-related measures performed poorly. Despite all showing steady improvement compared with 2014, water pollution, air pollution, and solid waste remained the only metrics with an average score below 3, alongside accountability.

Despite some variation in spatial patterns for the individual performance measures, countries that perform well in some measures tend to perform well in others. Although there are a couple of lower-performing countries in West Africa, countries in Central Africa performed noticeably worse than those in the rest of the region.

Overall, African countries have a narrow lead in performance compared with International Development Association (IDA) countries in the rest of the world. The average overall CPIA score for environment in African countries is around 0.1 point higher than that for the rest of the world. The relative performance on the 14 metrics in Africa appears to follow a similar pattern as the rest of the world, with most institutional measures doing well, but the accountability and pollution metrics performing poorly on average. The region outperforms other IDA countries in most individual performance metrics. The largest leads are across the institutional metrics and in biodiversity and renewable resources. The only metrics in which the region falls significantly behind other IDA countries are air pollution and more narrowly climate change.

The environment CPIA results do not show any clear correlation with per capita gross domestic product, but are strongly correlated with governance measures (for example, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index). No systematic differences were found between countries with and without high dependency on mineral revenues. The environment CPIA is also correlated with adjusted net savings (ANS), suggesting that improved environmental management is related to overall economic sustainability (figure C.6). Countries with scores of 3.2 or higher are significantly more likely to have positive ANS (19 of 21 countries versus two of 11 countries with CPIA for Environment scores less than 3.2).

FIGURE C.6

The environment CPIA is correlated with adjusted net savings, suggesting that improved environmental management is related to overall economic sustainability

Source: Recent ANS versus raw 2015 scores for the 32 countries with ANS data, World Development indicators; World Bank staff estimates based on sources and methods in World Bank 2011.

Note: Adjusted net savings (ANS) estimates are represented as a percentage of gross domestic product. Only countries with ANS estimates since 2010 were included. in most cases the estimate is from 2013; eight are from 2012, three from 2011, and four from 2010. For adjusted net savings, including particulate emission damage (percent of gross national income), ANS values are equal to net national savings plus education expenditure and minus energy depletion, mineral depletion, net forest depletion, and carbon dioxide and particulate emissions damage.

Environment CPIA Score for 2015 and Adjusted Net Savings (Latest Data)

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Adju

sted

Net

Savi

ngs

Environment score, 2015

3 4

CLUSTER D: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONS

Cluster D covers governance and public sector capacity issues: property rights and rule-based governance; quality of budgetary and financial management; efficiency of revenue mobilization; quality of public administration; and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector.

Public institutions play an important role in enabling development. Effective, accountable, and transparent institutions ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision making; strengthen the rule of law; enforce property rights; and ensure equal access to justice for all. They also help combat corruption, reduce illicit financial flows, fight crime, and promote peace in society. Effective revenue collection, coupled with sound budgetary and financial management, enhances predictability in public investment and offers other benefits. The recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have fundamentally expanded the attention on building the capacities of institutions to encourage sustainable change.6

The call for positive change in Sub-Saharan Africa’s public institutions also comes from multiple stakeholders who demand better results and accountability. Businesses and citizens expect timely information and transparency, and expect that their voices will be heard in formulating policies. Taxpayers and the media demand higher predictability in public investment as well as the equitable use of public resources. To enhance democratic systems, civil society and community organizations demand accountability and the disclosure of assets by political leaders and those in government. Countries and regional entities facing the challenge of conflict, migration, extremism, and fragility within and across their borders and territories are demanding collective action to deal with the root causes of poverty and governance failures, and to address humanitarian situations.

Despite the heightened policy and institutional efforts that led up to the SDGs (such as the facilitation of national dialogues on the impacts of the Millennium Development Goals, new regulations, and engagement of civil society in transparency enhancement efforts), the average governance ranking of Sub-Saharan African countries in 2015 is low. The score is 3.0 for the region’s IDA countries, compared with 3.2 for IDA countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, partly because of the protracted nature of conflict and fragility in many locations, such as the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes Region, and the Sahel, the rank of fragile countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is low, at a score of 2.6, compared with 2.8 for fragile countries outside the region. The average score for the region’s non-fragile countries is comparable to that of non-fragile countries elsewhere (figure D.1).

There is diversity in performance across the components of the governance cluster. Efficiency of revenue mobilization leads all components, with an average score of 3.4 for the region, followed by quality of budgetary and financial management, with a score of 3.1. Scores for the other components are weak, especially for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (2.7). A similar pattern is evident when the results are disaggregated by country groups. For non-fragile countries, the highest average score is for efficiency of revenue mobilization (3.7) and the weakest average score is for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (3.0). For the region’s fragile countries, the comparable scores are 3.1 and 2.3, respectively. At 2.4, the performance on property rights and rule-based governance is also particularly weak in the region’s fragile countries. The quality of institutions in Sub-Saharan Arica’s

6 The SDGs are officially known as Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. There are 17 aspirational goals and 169 targets. Goal 16 calls to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

3 5

non-fragile group of countries is generally on par with that in non-fragile countries in other regions. But this is not the case for the region’s fragile countries, which sharply lag other fragile countries in transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector; property rights and rule-based governance; and quality of budgetary and financial management. All of these attributes, whether in fragile or non-fragile countries, are important for institution building and would require enhanced efforts to achieve a successful transformation in the region.

The CPIA results for 2015 show that gains in Cluster D slowed in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Public Sector Management Cluster, seven countries saw improvements (compared with nine in 2014), and six countries saw a reduction in their public management average scores (compared with four in 2014). Ghana experienced an increase of 0.3 point in its overall average score; Comoros experienced an increase of 0.2; and Chad, Guinea, Madagascar, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe saw an improvement of 0.1 (figure D.2). Gains in the quality of public financial management, coupled

FIGURE D.2

Gains in the Public Sector Management Cluster slowed in 2015; seven countries saw improvements from last year and six countries saw a reduction


Burundi

South Sudan

The Gambia

Tanzania

Mozambique

Eritrea

Zimbabwe

Rwanda

Madagascar

Guinea

Chad

Comoros

Ghana

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Change in Cluster D Score in 2015

FIGURE D.1

The average governance score for IDA countries in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2015 is a low 3.0, weighed down by poor governance in fragile countries

2.4

2.7

3.1 3.2

2.7 3.0

3.4 3.4

3.1 3.1

3.7 3.6

2.5 2.5

3.1 3.2

2.3

2.9 3.0

3.1

2.6 2.8

3.3 3.3

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Fragile countries in SSA Fragile countries outside SSA Non-fragile countries in SSA Non-fragile countries outside SSA

Property rights and rule-based government Quality of budgetary and financial management Efficiency of revenue mobilization Quality of public administration Transparency, accountablity and corruption in public sector Cluster D: Public sector management and institutions

Cluster D Scores for Sub-Saharan Africa, by Country Group

Source: CPiA database.Note: SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.

3 6

with property rights and rule-based strengthening, led to the upgrade of the governance cluster in Comoros and Ghana. Upgrades in budget and financial management in Madagascar and improvements in property rights and regulations in Guinea account for the gains in governance scores (table D.1).

Quality of Public Financial Management

In 2015, the quality of public financial management saw three countries’ scores increase (Comoros, Ghana, and Madagascar) and four countries’ scores decrease (table D.1). Generally, financial management modernization efforts, guided by Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) and other reviews, aim to improve the data and information on budget execution for timely and accurate government policy making, for which automated information systems are implemented. Efforts have been made to strengthen independent audit and oversight entities, and to develop annual budgets with fiscal year forecasts, budget proposals, and previous year outcomes to facilitate accountable governance. Policy measures have also been taken to align expenditures to investment priorities, fulfill annual budget requirements, and chalk out a sustainable path for national development over the medium term. Efforts to improve the timeliness of the examination of audit reports by the legislature were also pursued. Improving the proportion of aid that is managed by the use of national procedures is also an area of attention, since many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (such as the Central African Republic and Rwanda) rely heavily on foreign assistance.7

Table D.1 Changes in Scores, by Indicator

Indicators Number of increases

Number of decreases

Countries with increases

Countries with decreases

Property Rights and Rule-based Governance

3 1Comoros, Ghana, Guinea

Burundi

Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management

3 4Comoros, Ghana, Madagascar

Burundi, South Sudan, Tanzania, The Gambia

Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization

3 0Chad, Ghana, Rwanda

Quality of Public Administration 0 1 Eritrea

Transparency, Accountablity and Corruption in Public Sector

1 3 ZimbabweBurundi, Mozambique, South Sudan

Source: CPiA database

In Comoros, to strengthen financial management, the government approved the new harmonized budget classification and treasury cash plans, and operationalized a single treasury account, including for tax collection and customs services. Furthermore, there has been an improvement in the transparency of the management of the revenues from state-owned enterprises, and information is now readily available to decision makers.

7 The PEFA framework provides the foundation for evidence-based measurement of countries’ public financial management (PFM) systems. A PEFA assessment measures the extent to which PFM systems, processes, and institutions contribute to the achievement of desirable budget outcomes: aggregate fiscal discipline, strategic allocation of resources, and efficient service delivery. The framework assesses and reports on the strengths and weaknesses of public financial management, using 31 performance indicators that are disaggregated into 94 dimensions. The performance of each indicator and dimension is measured against a four-point ordinal scale from A to D. The highest score, A, is warranted if evidence clearly demonstrates that an internationally recognized level of good performance is achieved. The D score indicates that performance is below the basic level. See http://www.pefa.org for details.

3 7

Ghana extended the implementation of program-based budgeting to 33 ministries. Links between the individual programs and the policy priorities in different sectors were also established. The government continued to pursue the implementation of actions to prevent an uncontrolled accumulation of arrears, by introducing the commitment control module of the Ghana Integrated and Financial Management Information System, as well as establishing a contracts database to monitor contract implementation. Consequently, because of these and other measures, the country was able to reduce the deviation of actual expenditure from the original budget expenditures of the previous year.

In Madagascar, budget links to policy priorities, fiscal reporting, and management were improved. The National System of Monitoring and Evaluation was adopted, in line with the National Development Plan priorities, which is a five-year strategy and reference framework for the budget. This year, the Ministry of Finance started to publish budget execution reports on its website. The government undertook considerable efforts to consolidate information on arrears, renegotiate with creditors, and improve monitoring.

Revenue Mobilization

Aided by a period of higher growth rates in Sub-Saharan Africa, reforms in policy and tax administration have yielded positive results, but not enough to meet the region’s accelerated development needs. With a score of 3.7, non-fragile countries in the region rank higher than non-fragile countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa (3.6), while fragile countries in the region are on par with those of fragile countries outside the region (3.1). A substantial portion of revenue now comes from corporate taxes in many countries. The ratio of corporate tax to total taxes in countries such as Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Rwanda, and Senegal (13 to 18 percent) is significantly higher than the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (8.5 percent) (OECD 2016). These encouraging results have been due to the implementation of several measures, such as introducing value-added tax (VAT) reforms, setting up revenue administration authorities, introducing electronic filing systems, deploying a bookkeeping system to track VAT, and reducing and promoting nontax reforms that alleviate the economic, demographic, and institutional constraints faced by taxpayers.8

During 2015, Chad, Ghana, and Rwanda made positive gains in their score for revenue mobilization. In Chad, the development of an integrated tax management system was completed, which eases the administration and collection of taxes and uses a unique tax identification number for reporting. To broaden the tax base, a census of taxpayers was conducted using GPS, and about 32,000 potential firm taxpayers have been identified. Currently, Chad has a narrow tax base of around 11,200 firms, of which approximately 250 are responsible for about half of all non-oil tax revenues. Furthermore, to increase taxpayer compliance and facilitate nondiscriminatory tax enforcement, the government has initiated the reform and simplification of the tax code and other fiscal procedures.

In Ghana, the Large Taxpayers Office played a significant role in revenue generation. A new customs bill was passed by the Parliament that harmonizes and consolidates existing regulations into one legislation. VAT on financial services was introduced after overcoming stakeholder and operational challenges. Tax audits were carried out using risk assessment criteria to encourage compliance. Public education on tax issues was successfully promoted, whereby guidelines on filing tax forms were made available on

8 In recent years, Sub-Saharan Africa has recorded about 15 percent higher actual tax revenues relative to predicted values (the tax revenue index). For details, see “Tax Revenue and Tax Efforts across the World,” Tuan Minh Le, Blanca Moreno-Dodson, and Nihal Bayraktar, World Bank 2014.

3 8

the Internet and disseminated through newspapers, local television, and radio stations via talk shows in English and the main local languages.

Rwanda’s modernization of its tax administration aimed at reducing the cost of compliance for citizens and businesses. Tax revenue collection also improved: the ratio of tax to gross domestic product (GDP) increased from 13.9 percent in FY2012/13 and 14.9 percent in FY2013/14, to 15.4 percent in FY2014/15. The authorities also made efforts to widen the tax base by working with government stakeholders such as district administrations, local governments, and cooperative agencies, and by using third-party information to identify taxpayers. An effort was made to roll out electronic billing machines to taxpayers (businesses). The sensitization of citizens and businesses on the use of existing online/electronic tax platforms was conducted, and the use of electronic filing was made mandatory for companies. As a result, more than 50,000 taxpayers filed their tax returns electronically in FY2014/15, compared with nearly 42,000 in FY2013/14. For the nontax revenue online system, the number of transactions made increased from less than 500,000 in June 2014 to 1.16 million in June 2015, as residents and citizens paid for public services like passports, visas, driving license fees, and resident permits.

According to the latest Doing Business report, Sub-Saharan Africa needs to improve its tax payment systems. For example, it takes 309 hours per year for a firm to complete the paperwork and other formalities for paying taxes in the region, compared with 201 hours per year in East Asia and the Pacific. The number of tax payments per year is also high in Sub-Saharan Africa (39), compared with 25 in East Asia and the Pacific and 18 in the Middle East and North Africa (table D.2). Weak revenue collection is also a problem.

Table D.2 Regional Comparison of Tax Payment Systems (Doing Business)

Region Distance to Frontier (DTF)

Payments (number per year)

Time (hours per year)

Sub-Saharan Africa 58 39 309

Latin America and Caribbean 63 30 361

South Asia 65 31 299

East Asia and Pacific 75 25 201

Europe and Central Asia 76 19 233

Middle East and North Africa 79 18 216

Source: Doing Business 2016, World Bank.

Since effective revenue collection and management are integral to development in Africa,9 innovative efforts are needed to fill the huge revenue gap that can fund accelerated development. A new Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool has been developed to assess gaps and prepare a road map for the modernization of the tax administration system, to reduce the cost of compliance and enhance revenue collection, among other improvements (box D.1). This innovative system has been piloted in

9 See www.OECD.org/tax/rising for tax revenues as a key to economic development in African countries, and www.oecd.org for revenue statistics in Africa.

3 9

BOX D.1

Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool

eight countries with positive results,10 and there is a need to mainstream its use in Sub-Saharan Africa to guide policy makers and tax administration experts in the improvement of institutional performance. Furthermore, the importance of domestic resource mobilization was stressed at the Third Financing for Development Conference (2015), which called on all parties to work together, collaborate, and crowd-in private sector finance to accelerate development.11

The Tax Administration Diagnostic Assessment Tool (TADAT) is a collaborative effort (by the European Union,

International Monetary Fund, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and World Bank

Group) that was designed to provide an objective assessment of tax administration. TADAT focuses on nine

key performance outcome areas that cover most tax administration functions, processes, and institutions.

The assessment of these performance outcome areas is based on 28 high-level indicators that have between

one and four dimensions that together add up to 47 measurement areas.

TADAT is particularly helpful in: (a) identifying the relative strengths and weaknesses in tax administration

systems, processes, and institutions; (b) facilitating a shared view on the condition of the system of tax

administration among all stakeholders (country authorities, international organizations, donor countries,

and technical assistance providers); (c) setting the reform agenda, including reform objectives, priorities,

initiatives, and implementation sequencing; (d) facilitating management and coordination of external

support for reforms, and achieving faster and more efficient implementation; and (e) monitoring and

evaluating reform progress by way of subsequent repeat assessments.

TADAT focuses on the performance of the major national taxes: corporate income tax, personal income tax,

value-added tax (or its indirect tax equivalent, such as sales tax), and pay-as-you-earn amounts withheld

by employers (which essentially are remittances of personal income tax). Social security contributions may

also be included in assessments where the contributions are a major source of government revenue and are

collected by the tax administration. For details, see http://www.tadat.org/overview/overview.html.

Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance and Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector

A few countries saw changes in the scores for property rights and rule-based governance: three countries (Comoros, Ghana, and Guinea) experienced an increase, while there was a drop in Burundi. In addition, the score for transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector dropped for three countries (Burundi, Mozambique, and South Sudan), while the score for Zimbabwe improved. The drop in scores in Burundi and South Sudan could simply be attributed to the escalation of violence, corrupt practices, and political and ethnic conflict in those countries, which has made already weak public institutions opaque and unaccountable, and citizens vulnerable and at risk. Transparency and effective judicial enforcement (which are closely associated key elements of the Cluster D indicator) need to be “radically” improved to

10 This tool has been used in Zambia (November 2013), South Africa (December 2013), Mozambique (March 2015), Malawi (May 2015), Côte d’Ivoire (June 2015), Madagascar (July 2015), Rwanda (August 2015), and Uganda (August 2015). Source: International Monetary Fund.

11 The Third Financing for Development Conference was held in Addis Ababa in 2015, to assess the progress made in the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration. At the meeting, more than 100 concrete measures were highlighted that draw on all sources of finance, technology, innovation, trade, and data to support mobilization of the means for a global transformation. The overall objectives were to (a) scale up efforts of the development community to help countries maximize their own resources; (b) continue to invest in helping countries develop policy environments to attract and manage greater financing flows; and (c) encourage everyone to engage the private sector and draw private sector finance to development. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/conference.html.

4 0

put a dent in corruption and build trust in public institutions.12

As a way forward, institutional change across CPIA Cluster D has to be radically magnified by taking advantage of the historic opportunity that places public institutions at the heart of the global development agendas, and the opening this provides for partnership, learning, and collaboration. Changes in Cluster D scores between 2009 and 2015 indicate that the governance and public sector performance of 15 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa improved, in some cases by substantial amounts (figure D.3). Among countries experiencing

a large increase in the score were Zimbabwe (0.8) and Côte d’Ivoire and Chad (0.5); more modest gains were recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia (0.3). Seven countries (Comoros, Guinea, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo) improved their score by 0.2, while three countries (Kenya, Liberia, and Niger) saw a gain in the score of 0.1.

This institution-building progress is positive and can offer lessons for accelerated development. However, to play the expanded role that governance and public sector institutions are called on to play in the successful implementation of the “transformation agenda,” public institutions will have to be strengthened at a much faster pace. And the scope will need to be much larger, to cover all countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (not just the 15 that demonstrated positive change). The expanded role will need to be modernized to facilitate the accelerated development called for by the SDGs, African Union Agenda 2063, and individual country plans. Because of the high level of attention given to collective actions during agenda setting, there is a unique opportunity for building institutions that harness good practices and share knowledge among policy makers on what works and how (for example, in tax administration, financial management, and service delivery). This will allow institutional transformation processes to gain added stimulus and direction, and help achieve the twin development goals of eliminating poverty and promoting shared prosperity.

12 At the recent Global Anti-Corruption Summit in London, the president of the World Bank Group outlined the notion of “radical transparency” to address the challenge of corruption. The meeting was an important political milestone in global efforts to confront corruption. Many countries made commitments to expose corruption within their public sectors and punish the corrupt and support those who have suffered from corruption. They agreed to review public procurement procedures to increase transparency. A commitment was also made to make the exchange of tax information easier to avoid tax haven problems. The countries also pledged to strengthen institutions of accountability in all branches of the state and work with other countries, civil societies, and international organizations to support the accelerated implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. http://www.gov.uk/government/topical event/anti-corruption-summit-london-2016.

FIGURE D.3

Changes in Cluster D scores between 2009 and 2015 indicate that the governance and public sector performance of 15 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa improved, in some cases by substantial amounts

Source: CPiA database.Note: Fragile countries are in red color.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Clus

ter D

scor

e, 2

015

Cluster D score, 2009

ZWE TCD

ZAR

SDN CAF

COM TGO

BDI COG

CIV

GIN

GNB

ERI

LBR CMR GMB

NGA

SLE MRT NER

STP

ETH

ZMB BEN KEN

MDG

UGA

LSO

MWI MLI

MOZ

SEN RWA

TZA BFA

GHA

CPV

Cluster D Changes between 2009 and 2015

4 1

References

Akresh, R., D. De Walque, and H. Kazianga. 2013. “Cash Transfers and Child Schooling: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation of the Role of Conditionality.” Policy Research Working Paper 82, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Baird, Sarah, Ephraim Chirwa, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Ozler. 2010. “The Short-Term Impacts of a Schooling Conditional Cash Transfer Program on the Sexual Behavior of Young Women.” Health Economics 19 (Suppl. 1): 55–68.

Bass, J. K., J. Annan, S. McIvor Murray, D. Kaysen, S. Griffiths, T. Cetinoglu, and P. A. Bolton. 2013. “Controlled Trial of Psychotherapy for Congolese Survivors of Sexual Violence.” New England Journal of Medicine 368 (23): 2182–91.

Blattman, C., and J. Annan. 2015. “Can Employment Reduce Lawlessness and Rebellion? A Field Experiment with High-Risk Men in a Fragile State.” No. w21289. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Campos, Francisco, Markus Goldstein, Laura McGorman, Ana Maria Munoz Boudet, and Obert Pimhidzai. 2014. “Breaking the Metal Ceiling: Female Entrepreneurs Who Succeed in Male-Dominated Sectors in Uganda.” Africa Region Gender Practice Policy Brief No. 9, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and J. E. Rockoff. 2014. “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood.” American Economic Review 104 (9): 2633–79.

Evans, D. K., and A. Popova. 2015. “What Really Works to Improve Learning in Developing Countries? An Analysis of Divergent Findings in Systematic Reviews.” Policy Research Working Paper 7203, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Hanushek, E., and S. Rivkin. 2010. “Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality.” CALDER, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, DC.

Lauwerier, T., and A. Akkari. 2015. “Teachers and the Quality of Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Education Research and Foresight: Working Papers Series 11. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris.

World Bank. 2011. The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2015. “Female Entrepreneurs Who Succeed in Male-Dominated Sectors in Ethiopia.” Gender Innovation Lab Policy Issue No. 12, World Bank, Washington, DC.

———. 2016a. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2016b. Service Delivery Indicators at a Glance. Washington, DC: World Bank.

4 2

CPIA Africa: Compare your country

COUNTRY TABLES

4 4

World Bank – Country Policy and Institutional AssessmentCPIA 2015

Definitions: • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment• IDA: International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank Group that provides

credits to the poorest countries• SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa• Poverty is based on PovcalNet poverty data as of June 2016 • The cut-off date for the World Development Indicators database is June 2016

Average scores for comparisons refer to country groupings as follows:• IDA Borrowing Countries: 76 countries eligible for IDA credits and with CPIA scores in 2015• SSA IDA Countries: 38 SSA IDA countries that had CPIA scores in 2015 • Fragile Countries in SSA: 17 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s Harmonized

Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries in SSA: 21 IDA-eligible countries (excluding fragile countries)• Fragile Countries outside SSA: 12 countries with CPIA scores included in the World Bank’s

Harmonized Fragile List for fiscal year 2017 • Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA: 26 IDA-eligible countries outside Sub-Saharan Africa

(excluding fragile countries)

NOTES: The CPIA consists of 16 criteria grouped in four equally weighted clusters: Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, and Public Sector Management and Institutions. For each of the 16 criteria, countries are rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). The scores depend on the level of performance in a given year assessed against the criteria, rather than on changes in performance compared with the previous year. The ratings depend on actual policies and performance, rather than on promises or intentions. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments originated in the World Bank or elsewhere. For details, see: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA.

Trend

Comparison

Progress

Country and Policy Institutional Assessment 2015

Quick Facts

CPIA Score Change from previous year

Highest performing cluster

Lowest performing cluster

3.5 — 3.8 3.3 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

BENIN

Indicator Benin SSA IDA Average

Economic Management 3.8 3.3Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 4.0 3.4Fiscal Policy 3.5 3.1Debt Policy 4.0 3.3

Structural Policies 3.5 3.2Trade 4.0 3.7Financial Sector 3.0 2.9Business Regulatory Environment 3.5 3.1

Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity 3.4 3.2Gender Equality 3.5 3.2

Equity of Public Resource Use 3.5 3.3Building Human Resources 3.5 3.5Social Protection and Labor 3.0 2.9Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability 3.5 3.2

Public Sector Management and Institutions 3.3 3.0

Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance 3.0 2.8Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management 3.5 3.1Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization 3.5 3.4Quality of Public Administration 3.0 2.8Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector 3.5 2.7

Overall CPIA Score 3.5 3.2

Population (millions) 10.6

GDP (current US$)(billions) 9.6

GDP per capita (current US$) 903

Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) 52

(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Benin IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

Public SectorManagement &

Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

Comparing Overall CPIA Scores

Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Benin

2008

2015

Benin

-0.2 -0.2

0.1 0.0

-0.1

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

Non-Fragile Countries in SSA

Non-Fragile Countries outside SSA

4 5









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.6 0.1 3.8 3.5 Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management)

(Structural Policies and Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

BURKINA FASO

Indicator Burkina Faso

SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20133.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Burkina Faso IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Burkina Faso

2008

2015



-0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.1

Burkina Faso

4 6









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 0.2 3.6 2.5Below SSA IDA Avg.

(Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity)

(Public Sector Management and Institutions)





BURUNDI

Indicator Burundi SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

Burundi

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Burundi

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

-0.5

0.5 0.3

0.1

3.0

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8


Overall CPIA Scores

Burundi IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

-0.1

Fragile Countries outside SSA

Fragile Countries in SSA

4 7









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.8 0.1 4.0 3.7 Above SSA IDA Avg.


(Economic Management)

CABO VERDE

Indicator Cabo Verde

SSA IDA Average











Poverty below US$1.25 a day (% of population, 2011, est) 13.7

(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3.5

3.5

4.2

3.8

3.5

3.5

Cabo Verde IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Cabo Verde

2008

2015



3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

-0.8 -0.5 -0.4

0.00.0

Cabo Verde

4 8









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 0.1 3.5 2.9 Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management)


CAMEROON

Indicator Cameroon SSA IDA Average










GDP per capita (current US$) 1,407


(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3.2

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Cameroon IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015Cameroon

2008

2015

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

0.0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2

0.0

Cameroon Non-Fragile Countries in SSA


4 9









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.5 0.1 3.0 2.2Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)





CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

IndicatorCentral African

Republic SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

Central African Republic

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

Overall CPIA Scores

0.2

-0.4

0.1

-0.1

0.0


Central African Republic

IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015Central African Republic

2008

2015

2.5

2.5

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

5 0









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.8 0.1 3.2 2.6 Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management)






CHAD

Indicator Chad SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Chad

0.5

-0.1

0.2 0.3

0.5


Overall CPIA Scores

Chad IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2008

2015

2.5

2.8

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



Chad

5 1









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.8 0.1 3.0 2.6Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

COMOROS

Indicator Comoros SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overall CPIA Scores

Comoros IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Comoros

Comoros

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

0.8

0.3 0.4 0.4

0.5

2008

2015

2.3

2.8

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



5 2









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.0 — 3.5 2.5Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

Indicator Congo DR SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overall CPIA Scores

Congo, Democratic Republic


SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Congo, Democratic Republic

Congo, Democratic Republic

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

0.3 0.3 0.30.3

0.1

2008

2015

2.7

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



5 3









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.0 — 3.5 2.5Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management)






CONGO, REPUBLIC

Indicator Congo Republic

SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

Congo, Republic

0.7

0.2 0.3

-0.1

0.3

2.7

3.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Congo, Republic

Overall CPIA Scores

Congo, Republic IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5



5 4









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.3 — 3.7 3.0Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management)






CÔTE D’IVOIRE

Indicator Côte d’Ivoire

SSA IDA Average








(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Côte d’Ivoire

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

0.0

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

0.7


Institutions

0.6

1.2

0.6

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Côte d’Ivoire

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Côte d’Ivoire IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

2008

2015

2.7

3.3

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



5 5









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




1.9 0.1 2.6 1.3Below SSA IDA Avg.


(Economic Management and Structural Policies)

Population (millions) NA

GDP (current US$)(billions) NA

GDP per capita (current US$) NA

Poverty below US$1.90 a day (% of population, 2012, est) NA

ERITREA

Indicator Eritrea SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Eritrea

Overall CPIA Scores

Eritrea IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Change in CPIA scores from 2008 to 2015Eritrea


1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

-0.9

-0.2 -0.2-0.4 -0.4

2008

2015

2.3

1.9

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



5 6









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.5 — 3.8 3.2Above SSA IDA Avg. No change


(Structural Policies)





ETHIOPIA

Indicator Ethiopia SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

0.2

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.6

3.5

0.0

0.2 0.2

0.1

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Ethiopia

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5


Ethiopia IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Ethiopia Non-Fragile Countries in SSA


Overall CPIA Scores

5 7









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.9 0.2 3.3 2.2 Below SSA IDA Avg.

(Structural Policies and Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity)


GAMBIA, THE

Indicator Gambia, The

SSA IDA Average












(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

3.2

2.9

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8

Gambia, The Fragile Countries outside SSA


-1.3

0.0 0.0 0.1

-0.3

Overall CPIA Scores


Gambia, The IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Gambia, The

3.0

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.6

5 8









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.6 0.2 3.9 3.0 Above SSA IDA Avg.



GHANA

Indicator Ghana SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3.9

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

Ghana IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015Ghana

2008

2015

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.8

4.0

-0.7

-0.1 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

3.6

Ghana Non-Fragile Countries in SSA


5 9









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 0.1 3.3 2.8Below SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management)






GUINEA

Indicator Guinea SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore


Institutions

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

Guinea

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

-0.3

0.3 0.2 0.10.2

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Guinea

Overall CPIA Scores


Guinea IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

3.0

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5



6 0









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.5 — 3.0 2.2Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies)

(Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity and Public Sector

Management and Institutions)

GUINEA-BISSAU

Indicator Guinea- Bissau

SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overall CPIA Scores

Guinea-Bissau IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

0.7

-0.2 -0.4 -0.4

-0.1

2008

2015

2.6

2.5

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



6 1









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts





and Institutions)

KENYA

Indicator Kenya SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20133.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

Kenya IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Kenya

2008

2015

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.5

0.1

Kenya Non-Fragile Countries in SSA


6 2









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.3 — 3.4 3.2Above SSA IDA Avg. No change







LESOTHO

Indicator Lesotho SSA IDA Average








(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2008

2015

Lesotho

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Lesotho

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Overall CPIA Scores

3.5

3.3

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5


-0.8

0.1 0.0

-0.2-0.1

Lesotho IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average



6 3









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 — 3.5 2.9Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

LIBERIA

Indicator Liberia SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Liberia IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policies for Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Overall CPIA Scores

Change in CPIA Scores from 2009 to 2015Liberia

Liberia

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

0.3 0.3 0.2

0.5

0.1

2009

2015

2.8

3.1

3.2

2.9

2.8

2.8



6 4









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 — 3.7 2.7Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management)






MADAGASCAR

Indicator Madagascar SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Madagascar

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Madagascar


Madagascar IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Overall CPIA Scores

3.0

3.2

2.8

3.4

3.6

3.8

-0.5 -0.5

-0.1

-0.9

-0.6

2008

2015

3.7

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



6 5









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.2 — 3.5 2.8 At the SSA IDA Avg. No change



MALAWI

Indicator Malawi SSA IDA Average












(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2008

2015


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Malawi

Overall CPIA Scores

Malawi IDA Borrowers' average

SSA IDA average

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

-0.3 -0.2

-0.3

-0.5

0.1

3.4

3.2

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Malawi Non-Fragile Countries in SSA


6 6









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts





and Institutions)

MALI

Indicator Mali SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20133.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Overall CPIA Scores

Mali IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Mali

-0.5

0.0

-0.2

-0.4 -0.3

Mali

2008

2015

3.7

3.4

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



6 7









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts





(Structural Policies and Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

MAURITANIA

Indicator Mauritania SSA IDA Average












(2014)

3.3

3.3

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Mauritania

Overall CPIA Scores

Mauritania IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Score from 2008 to 2015Mauritania

2008

2015



3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.4

-0.1

0.0 0.0

-0.1

0.2

6 8









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts






MOZAMBIQUE

Indicator Mozambique SSA IDA Average












(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

Overall CPIA Scores


Mozambique IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Mozambique


Non-Fragile Countries 0utside SSA

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

-0.5

-0.2

0.0

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

-0.2 -0.1

Mozambique

6 9









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.5 0.1 3.8 3.2 Above SSA IDA Avg. (Economic Management) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)

NIGER

Indicator Niger SSA IDA Average












(2014)

3.6

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.3

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Niger IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policies for Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Niger

2008

2015

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

0.1 0.2 0.2

0.3

0.0

NigerNon-Fragile Countries in SSA


7 0









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts

Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts






NIGERIA

Indicator Nigeria SSA IDA Average












(2014)

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Nigeria IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policies for Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Nigeria

2008

2015

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

0.2 0.0

0.3

-0.1

Nigeria

-0.5



7 1









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




4.0 — 4.3 3.7 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Policies for Social Inclusion

and Equity)(Public Sector


RWANDA

Indicator Rwanda SSA IDA Average












(2014)

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

3.7

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Rwanda IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Rwanda

2008

2015



2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

0.7

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.2

Rwanda

7 2









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.1 — 3.2 2.8Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Economic Management)

SÃO TOMÉ AND PRÍNCIPE

Indicator São Tomé and Príncipe

SSA IDA Average












(2014)

3.0

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores



SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015São Tomé and Príncipe

2008

2015

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

0.0 0.0

0.3

0.0

0.1




7 3









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.8 — 4.2 3.5 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management)


SENEGAL

Indicator Senegal SSA IDA Average












(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2008

2015

Senegal

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Senegal


Overall CPIA Scores

Senegal IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

0.4

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

0.2

0.1

0.2 0.2

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0



7 4









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts





and Institutions)

SIERRA LEONE

Indicator Sierra Leone

SSA IDA Average












(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policies for Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Sierra Leone

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Sierra Leone

-0.2

0.0

0.4 0.4

0.2

Overall CPIA Scores


Sierra Leone IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

2008

2015

3.1

3.3

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



7 5









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




1.9 0.1 2.2 1.5Below SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management)





SOUTH SUDAN

Indicator South Sudan

SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overall CPIA Scores

South Sudan


SSA IDA Average

Change in CPIA scores from 2012 to 2015South Sudan

-0.2 -0.2

-0.1

-0.3 -0.3

South Sudan


2012

2015

2.1

1.9

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.8



1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

7 6









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.4 — 2.7 2.2Below SSA IDA Avg. No change (Structural Policies) (Public Sector Management

and Institutions)





SUDAN

Indicator Sudan SSA IDA Average








(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overall CPIA Scores

Sudan IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Sudan

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Sudan


2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4

-0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.1 -0.1

2008

2015

2.5

2.4

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



7 7









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts






TANZANIA

Indicator Tanzania SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2008

2015

Tanzania

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Tanzania


Tanzania IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

Overall CPIA Scores

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

0.0

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

-0.2-0.1-0.1

-0.3

EconomicManagement

OverallCPIAScore

3.8

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5



2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

7 8









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.0 — 3.3 2.6Below IDA Avg. No change







TOGO

Indicator Togo SSA IDA Average








(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20132.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

Overall CPIA Scores

Togo IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Togo

Togo

0.10.0

0.4 0.3

0.6

2008

2015

2.7

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8



7 9









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.7 — 4.2 3.1 Above SSA IDA Avg. No change (Economic Management) (Public Sector


UGANDA

Indicator Uganda SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20133.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Uganda IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Uganda

2008

2015



-0.3

0.2

-0.1-0.2

-0.3

Uganda

8 0









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




3.3 0.1 3.7 3.0Above SSA IDA Avg. (Structural Policies) (Economic Management)

ZAMBIA

Indicator Zambia SSA IDA Average

Economic Management 3.0 3.3Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy 3.0 3.4Fiscal Policy 2.5 3.1

Debt Policy 3.5 3.3











(2014)

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity

OverallCPIAScore

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Institutions

3.5

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Zambia IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

3.5

3.3

3.5

3.5

2008

2015

Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Zambia

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

ZambiaNon-Fragile Countries in SSA



0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.7

8 1









Trend

Comparison

Progress


Quick Facts




2.9 0.2 3.3 2.7Below IDA Avg. (Policies for Social

Inclusion and Equity)(Economic Management and

Structural Policies)

ZIMBABWE

Indicator Zimbabwe SSA IDA Average












(2014)

2014 20152008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20131.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Overall CPIA Scores

Zimbabwe IDA Borrowers' Average

SSA IDA Average

EconomicManagement

StructuralPolicies

Policiesfor Social

Inclusion/Equity


Institutions

OverallCPIAScore


Change in CPIA Scores from 2008 to 2015Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe

1.71.5

1.2

1.8

1.2

2008

2015

1.4

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.9

2.8



8 2

Appendix A: CPIA Components

A. Economic Management

1. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy: The quality of monetary/exchange rate policies in a coherent macroeconomic policy framework.

2. Fiscal Policy: The quality of fiscal policy as regards stabilization (achieving macroeconomic policy objectives in conjunction with coherent monetary and exchange rate policies, smoothing business cycle fluctuations, accommodating shocks) and resource allocation (appropriate provisioning of public goods).

3. Debt Policy: Degree of appropriateness of the country’s debt management strategy for ensuring medium-term debt sustainability and minimizing budgetary risks.

B. Structural Policies

4. Trade: Extent to which the policy framework fosters regional and global integration in goods and services, focusing on the trade policy regime (tariffs, nontariff barriers and barriers to trade in services) and trade facilitation.

5. Financial Sector: Quality of policies and regulations that affect financial sector development on three dimensions: (a) financial stability; (b) the sector’s efficiency, depth, and resource mobilization strength; and (c) access to financial services.

6. Business Regulatory Environment: The extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private business in investing, creating jobs and becoming more productive.

C. Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity

7. Gender Equality: The extent to which policies, laws and institutions (a) promote equal access for men and women to human capital development; (b) promote equal access for men and women to productive and economic resources; and (c) give men and women equal status and protection under the law.

8. Equity of Public Resource Use: The extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities.

9. Building Human Resources: The quality of national policies and public and private sector delivery in health and education.

10. Social Protection and Labor: Policies promoting risk prevention by supporting savings and risk pooling through social insurance, protection against destitution through redistributive safety net programs and promotion of human capital development and income generation, including labor market programs.

11. Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability: The extent to which environmental policies and institutions foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution.

D. Public Sector Management and Institutions

12. Property Rights and Rule-based Governance: The extent to which economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced.

13. Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management: The extent to which there is: (a) a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; (b) effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and (c) timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely audit of public accounts and effective arrangements for follow up.

14. Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization: Assesses the overall pattern of revenue mobilization, not only the tax structure as it exists on paper, but revenue from all sources as they are actually collected.

15. Quality of Public Administration: The core administration defined as the civilian central government (and sub-national governments, to the extent that their size or policy responsibilities are significant) excluding health and education personnel, and police.

16. Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector: The extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained.

8 3

Appendix B: Country Groups

Note: “Fragile Situations” have: either a) a harmonized average CPIA country rating of 3.2 or less, or b) the presence of a UN and/or regional

peace-keeping or peace-building mission during the past three years. This list includes only IDA-eligible countries and non-member or

inactive territories/countries without CPIA data. It excludes IBRD-only countries for which the CPIA scores are not currently disclosed.

The analysis does not include the following fragile countries since either they do not have CPIA data or are IBRD countries: Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, and West Bank and Gaza.

Sub-Saharan Africa Non Sub-Saharan Africa

Fragile Non-Fragile Fragile Non-Fragile

Burundi Benin Afghanistan Bangladesh

Central African Republic Burkina Faso Djibouti Bhutan

Chad Cameroon Haiti Bolivia

Comoros Cabo Verde Kiribati Cambodia

Congo, Democratic Republic Congo, Republic Kosovo Dominica

Côte D'ivoire Ethiopia Marshall Islands Grenada

Eritrea Ghana Micronesia, FS Guyana

Gambia, The Guinea Myanmar Honduras

Guinea-Bissau Kenya Papua New Guinea Kyrgyz Republic

Liberia Lesotho Solomon Islands Lao, PDR

Madagascar Malawi Tuvalu Maldives

Mali Mauritania Yemen, Republic Moldova

Sierra Leone Mozambique Mongolia

South Sudan Niger Nepal

Sudan Nigeria Nicaragua

Togo Rwanda Pakistan

Zimbabwe São Tomé and Príncipe Samoa

Senegal Sri Lanka

Tanzania St. Lucia

Uganda St. Vincent

Zambia Tajikistan

Timor- Leste

Tonga

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Vietnam

8 4

Appendix C: Guide to CPIA

The CPIA is a diagnostic tool that is intended to capture the quality of a country’s policies and institutional

arrangements—i.e., its focus is on the key elements that are within a country’s control, rather than on

outcomes (such as growth rates) that are influenced by elements outside the country’s control. More

specifically, the CPIA measures the extent to which a country’s policy and institutional framework supports

sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and consequently the effective use of development assistance.

The outcome of the exercise yields both an overall score and scores for all of the 16 criteria that compose the

CPIA. The CPIA tool was developed and first employed in the mid-1970s and over the years the World Bank

has periodically updated and improved it to reflect the lessons of experience and the evolution of thinking

about development.

In June 2006, the World Bank publicly disclosed for the first time the numerical scores of its 2005 Country

Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). The CPIA exercise covers country performance during a given

calendar year with the results for the IDA eligible countries disclosed in June of the following year.

The CPIA has undergone periodic reviews to update and refine the content of the criteria. The most recent

revision of the criteria took place last year and was applied to the 2011 CPIA exercise. The revisions were

guided by the conclusions of an IEG evaluation and by the relevant literature findings and the lessons

learned in carrying out the annual CPIA exercise in the past few years. In undertaking the revisions, special

attention was given to ensuring that the content of the revisions was commensurate with the availability of

information and the ability to assess country performance, and that some degree of continuity was preserved

in the criteria. The revisions have not resulted in significant changes in country scores. Among the revisions

are the following:

• InQ4(Trade),tradepolicyandtradefacilitationarenowequallyweighted;moreemphasisisplaced

on the trade regime, not just imports; services are explicitly introduced; and the trade facilitation sub-

component elaborated.

• Thecoverageofsocialassistanceprograms,includingcoordination,reachandtargetingissuesinQ10

(Social Protection and Labor), was strengthened.

• Q15(QualityofPublicAdministration)wasrevisedtoincludeastrongerfocusonthecorepublic

administration and, when relevant, a more explicit treatment of sub-national governments.

• InQ16,(Transparency,AccountabilityandCorruptioninthePublicSector)wasrevisedtoincludeanew

dimension to cover aspects of financial corruption that had not been treated consistently. Coverage

of fiscal information is now more explicit, and capture and conflicts of interest as distinct forms of

corruption are treated more consistently.

CPIA scores help to determine IDA allocations—concessional lending and grants—to low-income countries.

Details are available at: www.worldbank.org/africa/CPIA.

JUNE 2016

world bank document · 4 2015 cpia africa report summary u the average cpia score for ida-eligible...

Documents